Rebekah Willet (2017), writes about a study in which a group of 9-13 year old boys participated in a weekly class to learn how to design video games. Though by the end of the course the goal of video game design proved a bit too advanced for the young learners, some interesting insights developed regarding the process of teaching technology/teaching with technology. “It is possible that the boys did not require the tutor to give them step-by-step instructions, but instead they were gaining familiarity and learning to use the software through a gradual process of experimentation” (p.141). In this way, the article pairs nicely with the “Video Games, Learning, and Literacy” video (Gee, 2011), examining learning through a video game-like process in which the assessment is integrated into the learning. What the students in Willet’s study learned was demonstrated week-by-week in what they produced and the questions they asked; in fact, the creation of a video game was not necessary (nor, it turns out, possible) to gauge their understanding.

Wagler and Mathews (2012), discuss the ideas and methods that went into creating a mobile app that turned a trip to a local estuary into a sort of real-world museum. The meat of the piece came at the end where the authors discuss eight rules for anyone attempting to develop a similarly functioning educational app. Several of these tips, such as “collaborate with students” and “consider multiple uses for media,” provide insight beyond the development of a tour guide mobile app, and are applicable to teachers developing and implementing their own technology into the classroom in any fashion.

Frank Baker (2018) provides a curated collection of videos with which to teach students about various aspects of media literacy (though some videos seem geared more at teaching educators methods though which to teach media literacy to their students). For me, the videos focusing on “Fake News” were probably the most interesting as this concept was non-existent in my middle school days. Its a sticky subject to consider as an adult; approaching it as a young adolescent is almost mind-boggling. This article serves its purpose, but I think the author doesn’t go far enough in justifying the value of YouTube in the classroom, saying, “Every educator knows that using videos as part of instruction is one great way to get students’ attention” (para. 26).  Ok, buy why? Overall though, a worthwhile resource.

Dr. Erica Halverson’s (2011) argument boils down to, “we need to teach creativity and innovation if we wan to lead the wold in creativity and innovation.” I found myself very interested in her idea of a “production oriented mode of literacy,” which focuses on creating in general, and creating meaning in particular. It caused me to consider the methods by which I will teach literacy as a future ELA teacher. Maybe constructing “This American Life”-style radio stories is a bit advanced for middle school, but something else can cover similar territory. I’m tooling around with Storybird for my EPortfolio lesson project and that might be the answer. 

My biggest takeaway from this week’s readings is the idea that the process of education/learning can be an end in itself, regardless of the final product. Further, this process-based learning can not only be aided by technology but is oftentimes a more accessible model to young learners because of the digital culture in which they grew up. “It is clear, however, that children and young people are experiencing various ways of learning through their consumption and production of digital cultures” (Willet, 2017, 143). So, young adolescents are both producers and consumers and through this give-and-take they simultaneously learn and demonstrate their knowledge. 

This idea is pursued further by Gee (2011) when he points out that you would never test a Halo player who has played the game for hours and hours in order to assess proficiency. The act of playing Halo for hours and hours is demonstration enough. So why do we test students in math? I think there’s a valid point here, but it is a little muddled as this is not a one-to-one comparison. The goal of playing Halo is not to learn Halo. The goal of playing Halo is to have fun; learning Halo is a necessary byproduct. The goal of participating in math class though, is to learn math. Still, the idea of a process of learning that demonstrates proficiency on its own is interesting. And the readings seem to suggest technology makes this more easily achievable.

So this brings me back to considering what sort of creative “production oriented” task could be used by students to demonstrate a certain level of knowledge, without relying fully on the product itself to demonstrate mastery. This seems like it works best with concepts that can be self-taught through trial and error and I’m struggling to see how this would be executed in English Language Arts. Perhaps teaching students to use digital tools to produce and publish writing (NCSCS.ELA.W.7.4), could be done in this way. The students’ working through the creation of a blog/website would be demonstration enough that they have achieved proficiency in the standard. 

References:

Baker, F. (2018, June 6). Using Short Video Clips to Teach Media Literacy. Retrieved July 20, 2019, from https://www.middleweb.com/37862/using-short-video-clips-to-teach-media-literacy/

Gee, J.P. (2011, August 4). Video Games, Learning, and Literacy. Connected Learning Alliance. Retrieved July 20, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNfPdaKYOPI

Halverson, E. (2011, May 2). Art and Stories [Video file]. TEDx. Retrieved July 20, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeeimXjwNgg

North Carolina Standard Course of Study. English Language Arts Standards. Writing. Grade 7. NCSCS.ELA W.7.4

Wagler, M. and Mathews, J. (2012). Up River: Place, Ethnography, and Design in the St. Louis River Estuary. In Dikkers, S., Martin, J., & Coulter, B. (Eds.) Mobile Media Learning . 39-60. Pittsburgh, PA. Carnegie Melon  University ETC Press. 

Willett, R. (2005). New Models of Learning for New Media: Observations of Young People Learning Digital Design. Jahrbuch Medien-Pädagogik 4, 127-144. doi:10.1007/978-3-322-90687-8_8

Earl Aguilera (2019) compares two studies done on the integration of technology into the teaching of young students who have grown up in (and only know) a world with computers and the internet (i.e. “digital natives”). The first study, conducted by Christo Sims, focused on a sort of experimental school conceived to incorporate, “videogame-based pedagogies, media-production practices, and digitally networked out-of-school learning (Aguilera, 2019),” and how this method ultimately fell short due to its “disruptive fixation,” (the school was more interested in disrupting the current educational system than it was in creating actual improvements). The second study, conducted by Antero Garcia, found an inner city educator observing the technological leanings already displayed by his students, and harnessing them to bring technology into the classroom. Ultimately, Garcia’s method is found to be a more beneficial teaching strategy, as it, “points to the ways that we, as students, parents, teachers, and communities, might take action to advance our own visions of equitable and impactful education for all (Aguilera, 2019).”

Jason Theodore Hilton’s (2016) case study explores two veteran social studies teachers integrating technology into their teaching by first using the SAMR method, then using the TPACK method. The findings of the study tended to favor SAMR, showing it, “to most easily connect to student-centered design in that each activity is examined for specific opportunities to imbed technology in a manner that improves the independent learning capacity of the students (Hilton, 2016),” while finding the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge center of TPACK to be an almost unattainable ideal. 

Smith, Kahlke and Judd (2018), provide definitions and discussions of the terms “Digital Natives,” and “Digital Literacy,” and make a case for focusing on the latter as it “presents an opportunity to move toward evidence-informed dialogue about learning and technologies across generations.” Finally, the authors outline a model for incorporating the tenets of “Digital Literacy” into “Learning Design,” (described as authentic teaching and learning activities, learning goals ad feedback assessment) as a way, “to provide a foundation for fostering effective digital practices (Smith, et al., 2018).”

In this week’s final article, Erika E. Smith (2012), first defines the concepts of “Digital Natives” and “Digital Immigrants,” while relaying the history of the terms and the early scholarship associated with them. She goes on to explain modern criticisms with these terms/methods of looking at technology in education. These include a failure to update the thinking on/definitions of these terms over the past two decades and their inability to account for differences in socio-economic status.

A major takeaway from the reading this week is how using the idea of “Digital Natives” as a justification of teaching methods or pedagogy can lead to significant missteps. Sometimes this can result from a sort of “cart before the horse” scenario as Aguilera (2019) describes in his analysis of Simms’ study, “how cycles of techno-philanthropism and attempted educational reform can fail in their interventional goals.” In this case, designing a curriculum for “Digital Natives, for the sake of designing a curriculum for “Digital Natives” ultimately proved how, “educational reform efforts (technologically-driven or otherwise) often fail their intended beneficiaries (Aguilera, 2019).” 

Similarly, Smith (2012), provides almost a checklist of the way in which accepting the idea of the “Digital Native” at face value can prove ill-advised particularly when making broad assumptions about their characteristics. Smith points to Jones et al.  stating these “Digital Natives, “showed ‘significant variations’ in technology use amongst Net generation students (Smith, 2012).” Additionally, in showing variances of digital literacy amongst the “Digital Native” class, Smith references Hargittai who “found socio-economic status, including race and gender, to be a significant factor and an important predictor of technology skills, abilities, and habits (Smith, 2017).”

Ultimately, the problems inherent to this approach and manner of thinking about “Digital Natives” is remedied by the ideas presented in the videos this week. Heitner (2014), presents many sample ideas of ways students can more successfully navigate the digital present, but at the core, each of these ideas boiled down to “empathy.” The concept of “empathy,” of “putting yourself in another person’s shoes” can be a means of counteracting the problems with making assumptions about “Digital Natives.” For example, instead of taking for granted that a student has a high level of computer literacy simply based upon when he/she was born, take some time to speak to and listen to this student. Understand where he or she is coming from and consider that just because someone was born after the year 2000, they are not necessarily tech savvy.

Rushkoff (2018) similarly provides ideas that might remedy the problems that develop out of teaching to “Digital Natives” for the sake of teaching to “Digital Natives.” The tech billionaires Rushkoff discusses have created a sort of dystopian digital future (zero-sum winner take all) in their attempt to create a digital future for the sake of creating a digital future. This mirrors the failed experimental school Aguilera (2019) points to in his analysis of Simms’ study. It is possible that the solution Rushkoff provides would work for future schools setting out to teach directly to the “Digital Native”; “it’s a matter of retrieving the values that we’re in danger of leaving behind and embedding them in the digital infrastructure of the future (Rushkoff, 2018).” In other words teach to the students and if this means incorporating technology, then at times incorporate technology. Do not teach technology and if this means incorporating the students, then at times incorporate the students. 

References:

Aguilera, Earl. (2019). On disruption and integration: two views of digital media technologies in K-12 schools. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 14:1, 78-87. DOI: 10.1080/1554480X.2019.1565668

Heitner, Devorah (2014). The challenges of raising a digital native [Video file]. TEDx. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRQdAOrqvGg

Hilton, Jason T. (2016). A case study of the application of SAMR and TPACK for reflection on technology integration into two social studies classrooms.The Social

Studies, 107:2, 68-73. DOI:  10.1080/00377996.2015.1124376

Rushkoff, Douglas (2018). How to be “team human” in the digital future [Video file]. Ted Salon. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/douglas_rushkoff_how_to_be_team_human_in_the_digital_future?language=en

Smith, Erika E. (2012). The digital native debate in higher education: a comparative analysis of recent literature. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology., 38:3,  1-18. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oRsbYUENyA2fDLV8kZfKu35e-Y7-46Fr/view

Smith, E. E., Kahlke, R., & Judd, T. (2018). From digital natives to digital literacy: anchoring digital practices through learning design.design. In M. Campbell, J. Willems, C. Adachi, D. Blake, I. Doherty, S. Krishnan, S. Macfarlane, L. Ngo, M. O’Donnell, S. Palmer, L. Riddell, I. Story, H. Suri & J. Tai (Eds.), Open Oceans: Learning without borders. Proceedings ASCILITE 2018 Geelong. 510-515

TPACK revolves around three forms of knowledge and the ways in which these forms of knowledge link (Koehler, 2012). These three forms of knowledge include: content knowledge (the subject matter taught) and pedagogical knowledge, (the understanding of teaching/learning) (Koehler, Mishra, and Cain, 2013), as well as technological knowledge (how and why to utilize technology) (Koehler, 2012). Further TPACK covers the ways all these forms of knowledge overlap, like a sort of multi-Venn diagram (Koehler, et al., 2013). 

The entirety of TPACK is framed by “context,” as no knowledge exists free of outside influences (Koehler, et al., 2013). Punya Mishra (2019) argued “context” be changed to “contextual knowledge” giving it equal weight amongst the other core knowledges. This strikes me as a misstep; context informs all aspects of existence far beyond areas of knowledge. As such, I feel it works better as an amorphous “thing to consider” (as in the original methodology), than a separate knowledge area in its own right. Context only matters in how it interacts with other entities; it doesn’t exist on its own. 

SAMR is a hierarchy of classifications for incorporating technology into learning. As explained by Rommell, Kidder and Wood (2014), the lower levels consist of substitution (in which technology substitutes a more standard form of learning without adding much to the process) and augmentation (similar to substitution but with some added benefit). The higher levels consist of modification (in which technology fundamentally changes the form of learning) and redefinition (in which technology creates a new method of learning not otherwise possible). The article focuses on SAMR when used with mobile devices, though the method would seem to apply to technology in a broader scope as well.

Hamilton, Rosenberg and Akcaoglu (2016), criticize SAMR, stating, “When integrating technology, the purpose of this integration should be on enhancing and supporting student learning rather than using a particular technology.” Their complaint hinges on SAMR’s seeming tendency to push technology for technology’s sake, and framing more complete technological integration as desirable over basic technological integration. I tend to side with this critique. SAMR seems more beneficial as a reference once a lesson plan is mostly formed, not a framework from which lesson plans are developed. It would seem to go against the tenets of backwards design to focus on the technology over, “important processes of meeting instructional objectives and achieving learning outcomes (Hamilton, et al., 2016).”

My takeaway from Digital Competencies is that it is a sort of umbrella term designating any method involving a list of technological skills and understandings. Depending on the venue (or, say, context), these competencies may be very different. The digital competencies needed to be successful in college (project management, data queries and reporting (“Digital Competencies,” 2019)), are not the digital competencies necessary to be an effective teacher (digital citizenship, digital content and instruction (“Digital Teaching & Learning,” n.d.)). 

Digital competencies could function as a compliment to state mandated standards; another set of necessary skills/knowledge in which students are to demonstrate proficiency. 

Of the three methods we read about this week, TPACK strikes me as the most reasonable, or at least the easiest to seamlessly integrate into classroom learning. TPACK is relatively open ended and vague; the broad knowledge categories are in place, but what they entail and what the educator does with them is undefined. There is not a hierarchy to the knowledge (SAMR), and the content is not rigid and defined (Digital Competencies). As an example of use, knowing how to check student research papers for plagiarism is a necessary function, but understanding how to use digital database tools to do so is effective technological pedagogical knowledge. It shows, “An understanding of the affordances of technology and how they can be leveraged differently according to changes in context and purposes (Koehler, Mishra, and Cain, 2013).”

SAMR would be the least useful for my teaching. For example, using audiobooks to replace in class read-alongs seems like sacrificing necessary literary skills for the sake of adding technology. This puts technology at the forefront, when “Technology and other instructional tools are intended to play supporting roles in the learning process (Hamilton, et al., 2016).”

The video selection for this week forces us to consider how technology makes possibilities but can often function in a loop (Maeda, 2012). My takeaway is technology can both fundamentally change what we do as educators (change the process, perhaps change the necessary content as well), but we should utilize it under a critical eye; everything comes back around and we may just be straining to reinvent the wheel. 

References:

Digital competencies. (2019). Bryn Mawr College. Retrieved from https://www.brynmawr.edu/digitalcompetencies

Digital teaching & learning: about the NC digital learning competencies for classroom teachers. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gDU1MXlJ4KnbO-us78t0Hsf-kmdA-PMR/view

Hamilton, E.R., Rosenberg, J.M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model: a critical review and suggestions for its use. Tech Trends, 60, 433-441. DOI: 10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y

Koheler, M.J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is Technological Pedagogical Content  Knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193:3, 1319. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HAjxut5WBH3oB4a0iIpApQqNLYFFgYKf/view

Koheler, Matthew J. (2012). TPACK explained. Retrieved from http://www.tpack.org/

Maeda, John. (2012). How art, technology and design inform creative leaders [Video file]. TEDglobal. Retreived from https://www.ted.com/talks/john_maeda_how_art_technology_and_design_inform_creative_leaders

Mishra, Punya. (2019). Considering contextual knowledge: the TPACK diagram gets an upgrade. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35:2, 76-78. DOI: 10.1080/21532974.2019.1588611

Romrell, D., Kidder, L.C., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR model as a framework for evaluating mLearning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning. 18:2, 1-15. DOI: 10.24059/olj.v18i2.435

This is an example post, originally published as part of Blogging University. Enroll in one of our ten programs, and start your blog right.

You’re going to publish a post today. Don’t worry about how your blog looks. Don’t worry if you haven’t given it a name yet, or you’re feeling overwhelmed. Just click the “New Post” button, and tell us why you’re here.

Why do this?

• Because it gives new readers context. What are you about? Why should they read your blog?
• Because it will help you focus you own ideas about your blog and what you’d like to do with it.

The post can be short or long, a personal intro to your life or a bloggy mission statement, a manifesto for the future or a simple outline of your the types of things you hope to publish.

To help you get started, here are a few questions:

• Why are you blogging publicly, rather than keeping a personal journal?
• What topics do you think you’ll write about?
• Who would you love to connect with via your blog?
• If you blog successfully throughout the next year, what would you hope to have accomplished?

You’re not locked into any of this; one of the wonderful things about blogs is how they constantly evolve as we learn, grow, and interact with one another — but it’s good to know where and why you started, and articulating your goals may just give you a few other post ideas.

Can’t think how to get started? Just write the first thing that pops into your head. Anne Lamott, author of a book on writing we love, says that you need to give yourself permission to write a “crappy first draft”. Anne makes a great point — just start writing, and worry about editing it later.

When you’re ready to publish, give your post three to five tags that describe your blog’s focus — writing, photography, fiction, parenting, food, cars, movies, sports, whatever. These tags will help others who care about your topics find you in the Reader. Make sure one of the tags is “zerotohero,” so other new bloggers can find you, too.