Since the integration of technology in education, many stakeholders have been waiting for transformative change to teaching and learning. However, expectations continue to fall short and well below the massive investment that is funnelled into education year on year (Laurillard, 2012; Magana, 2017). Magana (2017), refers to this “overpromising and underperforming” (Hall, 2021, p. 4) as educational technologies’ wicked problem. A wicked problem is ever-changing in nature, complex and evolving in complexity (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Virtual reality, augmented reality (VR), machine learning and artificial intelligence are current examples of technologies that have, with mixed results and varying reasons, found their way into education and added to this problem.
Educational technology integration models have been developed to support educators to solve this age-old problem. Based on my experience, successful models focus on pedagogy first and use technology to add value to the process of teaching and learning. In addition, these models are simple and relatively easy to adopt.
Why do I think so?
Howard et al. (2012), Laurillard (2012), Koehler et al. (2013) & Salmon (2013) all recognize that authentic integration of technology should support proven pedagogical principles and learning theories.
The TPACK Framework
The TPACK (Technology Pedagogy and Content Knowledge) framework, created by Koehler et al. (2013) built on Shulman’s Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) model by including technology. This addition recognizes the importance that partnering pedagogy and technology has on “how teaching and learning can change when particular technologies are used in particular ways” (Koehler et al., 2013, p.16). Critics of the TPACK framework (Figure 1) highlight the complex nature of the model, and the ambiguity around defining what the combined terms mean. (Graham, 2011; Magana, 2017).
Figure 1 The Technology Pedagogy and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework
Source: Educationaltechnology.net
Five-stage E-tivities Model
Salmon’s (2013) five-stage model for e-tivities provides educators with a scaffolded framework when designing an online learning programme. It outlines the gradual support (individual and collective) that learners require at each of the five stages “as they build up expertise in learning online” (Salmon, 2013, p. 15). Illustrated in Figure 2, each stage provides an equal split between pedagogical (E-moderating) and technical support. However, I feel that there is not a 50:50 split as more insight is provided into how to implement each stage based on pedagogy, rather than technology.
Figure 2 The Five-stage E-tivities Model
Source: Gilly Salmon
Conversational Framework
Diana Laurillard (2012) presents the Conversational Framework (Figure 3) which focuses on learning outputs (benefits) through an iterative motivation and enabling cycle. This framework can be applied to both conventional and digital learning and explicitly calls upon different teaching-learning activities and learning theories when covering the framework (Laurillard, 2012). Laurillard recommends using the framework as a design analysis tool so the educators can “account for why we expect them (learning technologies) to improve the learning experience” (2012, p. 100).
Figure 3 The Conversational Framework
Source: Diana Laurillard via Research Gate
Goal of Technology Integrations: Meaningful Learning
In Meaning Learning with Technology, Howard et al. focus on how pedagogical approaches drive learning and they view “technologies as learning tools that students learn with, not from… as engagers and facilitators of thinking” (2012, p. 7). They encourage a shift from the traditional information delivery use of technology by providing educators with a set of characteristics of meaningful learning (Figure 4). This recognition highlights the importance of a pedagogical first approach, and how learning through technologies can amplify conversation, articulation and knowledge construction, collaboration and reflection (Howard et al., 2012).
Figure 4 Characteristics of Meaningful Learning
Source: Semantic Scholar
So What?
Table 1 outlines implications from the above models.
Now what?
As a digital leader, using Laurillard’s (2012) Conversational Framework as a design analysis tool to identify how specific technologies will build upon pedagogical practices to improve the learning experience is a great place to start.
Massey Course Outcomes
Foundations of Digital Education (261.764)
Identify and synthesize key concepts and principles underpinning contemporary practices in digital education.
Critically evaluate links between the theoretical foundations of digital education and situated practice.
Critique the benefits and challenges associated with using digital technologies in contemporary, complex learning situations.
Teaching & Digital Education (261.766)
Reflect on the central concepts, theories, and current areas of debate in the study of teaching with digital technologies.
Analyse and critique the roles and responsibilities of an educator in digitally-enhanced formal and informal learning situations.
Apply knowledge of contemporary learning theories and digital technologies to plan, and design a teaching resource applicable to formal or informal learning situations.
Bibliography & References
Box, G. E. P., & Draper, N. R. (1987). Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics. Empirical model-building and response surfaces. John Wiley & Sons.
Hall, D. (2021). Assignment One: T3 Framework for Educational Technology Use. Unpublished paper, Massey University.
Howland, J., Jonassen, D., & Marra, R. (2012). Meaningful learning with technology (4th ed.). Pearson.
Graham, C.R., 2011. Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3) 1953–1960.
Koehler, M., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300303
Laurillard, D. (2012). Motivating and enabling the learning cycle. In Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. Routledge.
Magana, S. (2017). Disruptive classroom technologies: A framework for innovation in education. Corwin.
Rittel, W. , & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
Salmon, G. (2013). E-tivities: The key to active online learning (2nd ed., pp. 15-35). Routledge.
Comments