Artifact: Leadership Plan: How Technology Can Support Learning and Teaching
EDUC 5205G Leadership and Technology
Description
My Leadership Plan is a synthesis of key ideas from my courses. The paper is my attempt to make sense of the many models for understanding innovative technology use and types/levels of learning. The paper answers the question “how can technology support teaching and learning” by arguing that technology makes information available to all stakeholders, and supports higher order or “deeper” levels of learning to prepare learners for a changing future. I use examples of models like Senge’s systems thinking, and Puentedura’s SAMR model to discuss and demonstrate the L3 (transformative learning) I am advocating. In short, I conclude that the type of learning required to prepare students for the future “goes beyond rote learning and reflection toward a space where the learner is constantly and actively engaged with the world as a system”, a goal achievable only by innovative use of technology.
Reflection & Research
Key Ideas: Transformative Education, change, professional development
When I review this artifact I am immediately reminded of how mentally exhausting it was to write this paper. My paper is in need of proof reading! I was attempting to connect ideas that were at the edge of my understanding, just as the type of learning I was writing about is just outside of perception.
In this artifact I struggle to define learning and end up with “a process in context, which is never complete, with capabilities of transformative change, influenced by content”. My conclusion is slightly clearer about technology’s role in learning, stating that: Technology supports learning by building rote, higher-order, and “deeper” learning by providing a vehicle for communication, collaboration, differentiation, organization and storage. Technology helps learners become systems thinkers and question assumptions about worldviews which can lead to “previously inconceivable” levels of learning, and preparation for a rapidly changing future.
Though this artifact needs a lot of work, the ideas I am trying to present embody my current interest in, and understanding of learning. Though I failed to make clear the connections I see between L3 learning, transformative leadership, systems thinking, and innovative technology use, I plan to continue to pursue my interest in these topics, and will again attempt to make the connections I see clear in my Consolidation section of my portfolio. In reflecting on this artifact I see that I sometimes get ahead of myself when I am excited about an idea and my writing suffers. As an English major I don’t believe I am a weak writer, but I need to focus more on proof reading prior to submitting assignments about which I am passionate.
Professional Development was a focus of my Briefing Note, Blog, and Leadership Plan. Though not explicitly represented by artifacts, professional development was also a running theme in most of my courses. Additionally, I view the entire Masters of Education program as professional development, and thus felt it an important topic to include in this portfolio theme. My interest in professional development is geared toward effective use of technology in the classroom. The SAMR model came up in both Technology Diffusion and Leadership and Technology
My Leadership Plan is a synthesis of key ideas from my courses. The paper is my attempt to make sense of the many models for understanding innovative technology use and types/levels of learning. The paper answers the question “how can technology support teaching and learning” by arguing that technology makes information available to all stakeholders, and supports higher order or “deeper” levels of learning to prepare learners for a changing future. I use examples of models like Senge’s systems thinking, and Puentedura’s SAMR model to discuss and demonstrate the L3 (transformative learning) I am advocating. In short, I conclude that the type of learning required to prepare students for the future “goes beyond rote learning and reflection toward a space where the learner is constantly and actively engaged with the world as a system”, a goal achievable only by innovative use of technology.
Reflection & Research
Key Ideas: Transformative Education, change, professional development
When I review this artifact I am immediately reminded of how mentally exhausting it was to write this paper. My paper is in need of proof reading! I was attempting to connect ideas that were at the edge of my understanding, just as the type of learning I was writing about is just outside of perception.
In this artifact I struggle to define learning and end up with “a process in context, which is never complete, with capabilities of transformative change, influenced by content”. My conclusion is slightly clearer about technology’s role in learning, stating that: Technology supports learning by building rote, higher-order, and “deeper” learning by providing a vehicle for communication, collaboration, differentiation, organization and storage. Technology helps learners become systems thinkers and question assumptions about worldviews which can lead to “previously inconceivable” levels of learning, and preparation for a rapidly changing future.
Though this artifact needs a lot of work, the ideas I am trying to present embody my current interest in, and understanding of learning. Though I failed to make clear the connections I see between L3 learning, transformative leadership, systems thinking, and innovative technology use, I plan to continue to pursue my interest in these topics, and will again attempt to make the connections I see clear in my Consolidation section of my portfolio. In reflecting on this artifact I see that I sometimes get ahead of myself when I am excited about an idea and my writing suffers. As an English major I don’t believe I am a weak writer, but I need to focus more on proof reading prior to submitting assignments about which I am passionate.
Professional Development was a focus of my Briefing Note, Blog, and Leadership Plan. Though not explicitly represented by artifacts, professional development was also a running theme in most of my courses. Additionally, I view the entire Masters of Education program as professional development, and thus felt it an important topic to include in this portfolio theme. My interest in professional development is geared toward effective use of technology in the classroom. The SAMR model came up in both Technology Diffusion and Leadership and Technology
SAMR Model
SAMR stands for substitution, augmentation, modification and redefinition. This technology implementation/innovative use model offers a way of thinking about technology use and its impact on teaching and learning. This model shows the progression of technology use, beginning with use for enhancement, where new technology merely substitutes or augments old methods, and moving toward transformational use that achieves modification of the types of tasks possible, and redefines what is possible. According to Puentedura, the developer of the model, the goal of adding technology is to achieve tasks impossible before its implementation.
As I discussed in my blog, this model perpetually frustrates and intrigues me. Since becoming aware of it in my second term I have often returned to, and referenced it in discussion. This model makes me aware of my level of technology use, thus allowing me to reflect on said use. My issue, and the goal of most of the work in this portfolio, is to learn how to achieve redefinition. Defined as “previously inconceivable”, I have struggled to find satisfying examples of redefinition as everything I conceive is, well, conceivable. Having thoroughly examined this idea throughout my program, I have concluded that my goal should not be finding examples of redefinition but, rather finding ways to prepare students and teachers to reach redefinition. The goal of education should be to prepare learners for a future that is previously inconceivable, or currently unknown.
Context and Professional Development
The andragogy model mentions that adults learn best when their learning can be immediately applied to their real lives, and applied in context. In addition to the models above, I have included a framework for understanding knowledge base from Hughes. This section explains my concept of context and its implications on professional development and adult learning.
Cognitive Constructivist Learning Perspectives & Prior Knowledge
Awareness of one’s own beliefs is necessary for learning to occur, according to cognitive constructivist learning perspectives and teacher change literature because, only once aware, can a person begin to question those beliefs (Hughes, 2005, p.280). This questioning happens when people, situations, or internal reflection provide new ways of thinking, which leads to; cognitive conflict, questioning of knowledge base, and results in a change of action. Prior knowledge serves as a lens through which educators evaluate new knowledge, so learning experiences that provide alternatives or dilemmas may impel teachers toward questioning and changing their beliefs and knowledge. This idea echoes that of transformational learning.
Hughes offers further insight into “disorienting” teachers in technology focused professional development situations by further investigating what type of prior knowledge must be challenged. Prior knowledge can be divided into three types, according to Hughes (shown below). When teachers learn about technology use, it is important to identify which base is being drawn upon, and how it is being used (Hughes, 2005, p. 279).
SAMR stands for substitution, augmentation, modification and redefinition. This technology implementation/innovative use model offers a way of thinking about technology use and its impact on teaching and learning. This model shows the progression of technology use, beginning with use for enhancement, where new technology merely substitutes or augments old methods, and moving toward transformational use that achieves modification of the types of tasks possible, and redefines what is possible. According to Puentedura, the developer of the model, the goal of adding technology is to achieve tasks impossible before its implementation.
As I discussed in my blog, this model perpetually frustrates and intrigues me. Since becoming aware of it in my second term I have often returned to, and referenced it in discussion. This model makes me aware of my level of technology use, thus allowing me to reflect on said use. My issue, and the goal of most of the work in this portfolio, is to learn how to achieve redefinition. Defined as “previously inconceivable”, I have struggled to find satisfying examples of redefinition as everything I conceive is, well, conceivable. Having thoroughly examined this idea throughout my program, I have concluded that my goal should not be finding examples of redefinition but, rather finding ways to prepare students and teachers to reach redefinition. The goal of education should be to prepare learners for a future that is previously inconceivable, or currently unknown.
Context and Professional Development
The andragogy model mentions that adults learn best when their learning can be immediately applied to their real lives, and applied in context. In addition to the models above, I have included a framework for understanding knowledge base from Hughes. This section explains my concept of context and its implications on professional development and adult learning.
Cognitive Constructivist Learning Perspectives & Prior Knowledge
Awareness of one’s own beliefs is necessary for learning to occur, according to cognitive constructivist learning perspectives and teacher change literature because, only once aware, can a person begin to question those beliefs (Hughes, 2005, p.280). This questioning happens when people, situations, or internal reflection provide new ways of thinking, which leads to; cognitive conflict, questioning of knowledge base, and results in a change of action. Prior knowledge serves as a lens through which educators evaluate new knowledge, so learning experiences that provide alternatives or dilemmas may impel teachers toward questioning and changing their beliefs and knowledge. This idea echoes that of transformational learning.
Hughes offers further insight into “disorienting” teachers in technology focused professional development situations by further investigating what type of prior knowledge must be challenged. Prior knowledge can be divided into three types, according to Hughes (shown below). When teachers learn about technology use, it is important to identify which base is being drawn upon, and how it is being used (Hughes, 2005, p. 279).
Quality Professional Development
Hughes' research finds that ideally, professional development for teachers would offer thoughtful, subject-matter-based technology use, rather than the usual short-term workshops focused on learning software without context (2005, p.280). Professional development should consider desired outcome (i.e. innovation technology integration, not general technical skill) and target Subject Matter Knowledge and Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Further:
When I read Hughes as part of a seminar in Leadership and Technology I was impressed by her explanation of professional development for resulting integrated technology use. This article kindled my interest in improving professional development as a means for providing students with a better education in the technology age.
Upon reflection, the M.Ed program at UOIT utilizes many of the suggestions Hughes makes. The program exemplifies the value of different technologies for supporting instruction, while encouraging critical reflection on the effectiveness of their use. Flexibility and student participation in course selection and course content and assignments allows us to customize our learning to fit our interests and connect to prior knowledge. This lets us create content-based technology examples to bring back to our teaching practice. The program provides guided collaborative learning opportunities while provided support from professors, experts in the subject matter, to help us engage more effectively. I feel that the program has helped grow my internal motivation and given me to tools to make change.
Hughes' research finds that ideally, professional development for teachers would offer thoughtful, subject-matter-based technology use, rather than the usual short-term workshops focused on learning software without context (2005, p.280). Professional development should consider desired outcome (i.e. innovation technology integration, not general technical skill) and target Subject Matter Knowledge and Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Further:
- The power to develop innovative technology-supported pedagogy lies in the teacher's interpretation of the newly learned technology's value for supporting instruction. So, professional development must illustrate for teachers how they can use technology in their instruction, specific to subject area.
- Learning experiences must be grounded in content-based, technology examples to transfer effectively (Hughes, 2005), and expose teachers to "explicit models of how student learning unfolds within particular content areas" so they can apply their understanding of learning (Martin, 2010).
- Teachers with less professional knowledge and/or less intrinsic motivation to identify uses for new technology may need guided, collaborative, content-specific tech learning opportunities (Hughes, 2005). One option for support would be employment of "knowledge brokers" or highly trained individuals who provide constant personal support for teachers. These experts ease integration issues raised by resistant veteran teachers, and aid in proper selection of support tools and enhance instruction as a go-between for teachers seeking help engaging more effectively with technology in their practice (Plair, 2008).
- Teachers with more professional knowledge may develop innovative tech-supported pedagogy by bringing their own learning goals to professional development activities, because they have a stronger knowledge base in all three areas.
- Collaborative, subject-specific technology inquiry groups are proposed. Expert teachers might work with knowledge brokers or lead in "Electronic Learning Communities (ELC) which allow for continued contact and peer engagement after the p.d. session is over, as well as reflection on and sharing of learning (McPherson, Wizer, and Pierral, 2006).
- Opportunity to develop "knowledge of theory and rationale, to observe demonstrations and modeling that facilitate learning to practice targeted skills, and to engage in collaborative work with peers" is critical for successful technology p.d. (McPherson et al., 2006).
- Because change stems from questioning of beliefs, "bottom-up" models of teacher education where participants are involved in the planning process, and engage in reflective practice yield better results in terms of educational reform (Roberts, Crawford & Hickman, 2010).
When I read Hughes as part of a seminar in Leadership and Technology I was impressed by her explanation of professional development for resulting integrated technology use. This article kindled my interest in improving professional development as a means for providing students with a better education in the technology age.
Upon reflection, the M.Ed program at UOIT utilizes many of the suggestions Hughes makes. The program exemplifies the value of different technologies for supporting instruction, while encouraging critical reflection on the effectiveness of their use. Flexibility and student participation in course selection and course content and assignments allows us to customize our learning to fit our interests and connect to prior knowledge. This lets us create content-based technology examples to bring back to our teaching practice. The program provides guided collaborative learning opportunities while provided support from professors, experts in the subject matter, to help us engage more effectively. I feel that the program has helped grow my internal motivation and given me to tools to make change.