INNOVATION FROM TECHNOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY PERSPECTIVES

Dr Palitha EdirisinghaInstitute of Learning InnovationUniversity of Leicester106, New WalkLeicester LE1 7EA- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Tel: +44 (0)116 252 3753Mobile: +44 (0)7525 246592Email: pe27@le.ac.uk

F I RS

T U

SE

D I

N J

AN

UA

RY

20

14

I N A

N M

A C

OU

RS

E

INTRODUCTIONTechnologies as tools to support and improve human activity.

Technologies have the potential to help us to do things more efficiently and in new ways that we haven’t foreseen before.

Learning is an important activity that we engage in throughout our lives.

We will consider the relationship between learning theories (including models and frameworks) and technologies to support learning.

Technology and pedagogy go hand-in-hand. We cannot think about technology in isolation of underlying principles that promote learning (pedagogy).

We will consider a number of learning theories, models and frameworks that show the vital relationship between pedagogy and technology.

In particular, we will explore how Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPCK) might be a useful framework for us to think about ways of integrating technology in classrooms.

We will also consider models to examine how particular learning activities and approaches can be promoted through technology.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

1. Develop an understanding of the relationship between technology and learning principles in developing innovative learning approaches.

2. Raise awareness of a variety of frameworks and models that can be applicable in improving learning through technology.

3. Critically evaluate a number of technology-supported learning initiatives (in a range of educational contexts) from a pedagogical perspective.

TECHNOLOGIES - KEY QUESTIONS?

1. What are they?

2. Why should we talk about them?

3. Can they promote / support / enhance learning?

4. If so, how?

5. What are the underlying learning / pedagogical principles?

ACTIVITY 1 [ 10 MINUTES]

Read Papert (1993, pp. 1 – 2 ).

Find images of classrooms in the 18th / 19th C and those of 21st C. Do the look different? How?

Is your own experience similar or different?

What would be your response to Papert’s question: “Why, through a period of so much human activity has been revolutionized, have we not seen comparable change in the way we help our children learn?”

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY / PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING

Pedagogy?

Principles of learning?

Pedagogical theories? Learning theories?

How might you put the above into practice?

How might you translate theory / principles into meaningful learning activities?

THEORIES OF LEARNING

BehaviouristCognitivistSocial learningExperiential learning

(Jarvis et al., 2003)

BehaviouristCognitiveConstructivistSocial learning

(Wenger., 1998)

Associationist perspective – ‘learning as the gradual building of patterns of associations and skill components. … through sequence of activity and feedback’ (p. 15).

Cognitive perspective – learning as a process of understanding, individual.

Situative perspective – considers ‘influences from the social and cultural settings in which learning occurs’ (p. 18).

(Mayes and De Freitas, 2007)

Constructionist

(Papert, 1993)

OTHER TERMS?

FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE

Constructivist approach to teaching / learning

But…

HOW MIGHT YOU PUT LEARNING / PEDAGOGICAL PRINCIPLES INTO PRACTICE?

HOW MIGHT YOU TRANSLATE THEORY / PRINCIPLES INTO MEANINGFUL LEARNING ACTIVITIES?

TRANSLATING THEORY INTO PRACTICE

Your experience as a learner in the school / classroom?

Your experience as a teacher?

Your experience as a child growing up with siblings? With friends? Learning to speak the language(s) used at home?

Your experience as a parent?

READING ACTIVITY“MINDSTORMS: CHILDREN, COMPUTERS AND POWERFUL IDEAS” BY SEYMOUR PAPERT (1993).

How do we tend to use computers in the classroom? At home?

- ‘“computer-aided instruction” … making the computer teach the child’ (p. 5)

Papert’s vision:

- ‘the child programs the computer’ (p. 5).

Constructionism – building on Piaget’s Constructivism

‘Mathland’

FOLLOW-UP READING“RETHINKING UNIVERSITY TEACHING” BY DIANA LAURILLARD (1993).

“The teacher has to encourage ‘mathemagenic activities in the student. … those activities that give ‘birth to learning’ (p. 49).

Read pp. 100 – 101. a one-to-one tutorial between the teacher and the student.

Read pp. 103. Conversational Framework. How might this apply to different learning / educational contexts?

FOLLOW UP READINGCOLLIS AND MOONEN (2001, AFTER SFRAD, 1998)

Acquisition-oriented

Contribution-oriented

Participation-oriented

Activities for learners

TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: A FRAMEWORK FOR INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY INTO THE TEACHING AND LEARNING

Activity

Reflect on your role as a teacher and consider how you might describe the skills and knowledge that you require to be an effective teacher. Share your ideas with the rest of the group.

Why a framework?

Poor record of technology integration in the classroom (Cuban, 1986; 2001).

‘A conceptually based theoretical framework about the relationship between technology and teaching can transform the conceptualization and the practice of teacher education, teacher training, and teachers’ professional development’ (Mishra and Koehler, 2006, p. 1019).

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) • ‘teaching is a highly complex activity that

draws on many kinds of knowledge’ (Mishra and Koehler, 2006, p. 1019).

• ‘[a] framework for thinking about teacher knowledge and how it informs the debate on what teachers need to know (and how they might develop it)’ (ibid, p. 1020).

• ‘many knowledge systems that are fundamental to teaching, including knowledge of student thinking and learning, and knowledge of subject matter’ (ibid, p. 1020).

Content knowledge

(Shulman, 1986)

Pedagogy knowledge

Teacher’s knowledge

Content knowledge

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Shulman, 1986)

Pedagogy knowledge

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)A knowledge of how particular aspects of

subject matter are organized adapted and represented for instruction

Teacher’s knowledge of how particular content should be taught

PCK – ‘the content knowledge that deals with the teaching process, including the “ways of representing and formulating the subject that makes it comprehensible to others” (Shulman, 1987, p. 9, in Mishra and Koehler, 2006, p. 1021).

Pedagogical Content Knowledge•

‘At the heart of PCK is the manner in which subject matter is transformed for teaching. This occurs when the teacher interprets the subject matter and find different ways to represent it and make it accessible to learners’ (Mishra and Koehler, 2006, p. 1021).

Content

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK)

Pedagogy

Technology

Review the TPCK questionnaire items in groups of three and feedback to the whole group (15 minutes)

REFERENCESCollis and Moonen (2001) Flexible Learning in a Digital World: Experiences and Expectations, London: Kogan Page.

Cuban, L. (2001) Computers in the classroom: oversold and underused. London: Harvard University Press.

Cuban, L. (1986) Teachers and machines: the classroom use of technology. New York (NY): Teachers College Press.

Jarvis, P., Holford, J., and Griffin, C. (2003) The Theory and Practice of Learning, 2nd Edn. London: Kogan Page.

Laurillard, D. (1993) Rethinking University Teaching: a framework for the effective use of educational technology, London: Routledge. [please also read 2002 edition].

Mayes, T., and De Freitas, S. (2007) Learning and e-learning: the role of theory. In H. Beetham and R. Sharpe (eds.) Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age, London: Routledge.

Mishra, P., and Koehler, M. J. (2006) Technological Pedagogical Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, Vol. 108, No. 6, pp. 1017 – 1054.

Papert, S. (1993) The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer, New York (NY): Basic Books.

Sfrad, A. (1998) On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One, Educational Researcher, Vol. 27, No. 2. pp. 4-13.

Shulman, L. S. (1986) Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 4 – 14.

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thank you!

hope you have enjoyed the class

If you have any questions or suggestions to improve /

contribute to this session / presentation, please contact me

at:

pe27@le.ac.uk

@palithaed

+44 (0)116 252 3753

+44 (0)7525 246 592