Based on my experience as an Early Childhood Educator during the educational technology boom, I was able to identify with each article. When I began teaching, I started in a first grade classroom with minimal technology: two computers, an overhead projector, and a TV/VCR combo. Sixteen years later, my classroom has 1:1 Chromebooks, near 1:1 ipads, coding equipment, an interactive projector, and a new teacher iMac. It is a balancing act for educators, wanting to teach content while needing to create responsible consumers and producers of digital literacy (Hobbs, 2011).
As a novice teacher, I was an Innovator according to Rogers’ (1963) Adopter categories. I was among the youngest on staff, did not hold much opinion leadership among the faculty, and was interested in the data provided by new educational innovations (Rogers, 1963). I clearly remember when we gave our first online assessment. While many disgruntled, veteran teachers scorned, I printed my reports and happily ran to analyze the quick results. When teachers started to see the value of the new technology, they naturally gravitated toward them (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014).
As the years progressed, we were bombarded with technology. As Hobbs (2011) states, “Many school leaders mistakenly believe that simply providing children and young people with access to digital technology will automatically enhance learning” (p.15). It took years for educators to realize that the “differentiating power of educational technology” (Kuhn, 2008, p. 1) is actually what enhanced learning. Even though teachers had knowledge of Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences or Bloom’s Taxonomy, few had the time to plan lessons with these in mind (Kuhn, 2008). Thankfully, educational technology made it easier for teachers to ensure the rigor of their lessons (Kuhn, 2008). Huitt (2011) stated that “research shows that students remember more when they have learned . . . at the higher levels of the taxonomy” (p. 3).
The opportunity for learning through technology has never been more available. In 2014, Fullan & Langworthy identified three forces that will open up these possibilities: new pedagogies, quicker reform, and more affordable technology. They described these forces as a “positive contagion that becomes unstoppable given the right conditions” (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014, p. i). Fullan & Langworthy (2014) introduce a new term, “Deep learning” as a shift from pedagogies of the past ( p. i). “Deep learning is more natural to the human condition,” and the desired outcome is for the learner to master the learning process instead of a set of standards (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014, p. i). I have seen this evolution in education in the form of project-based learning. Letting students share an equal role as the teacher in their own learning, as Fullan & Langworthy (2014) suggest, will only intensify the need for digital citizenship. Students will need the skills to make wise and responsible digital decisions (Hobbs, 2011).
References
Fullan, M. & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. London: Pearson. Retrieved from https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/about-pearson/innovation/open-ideas/ARichSeamEnglish.pdf
Hobbs, R. (2011). Empowering learners with digital and media literacy. Knowledge Quest, 39(5), 12-17. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.pdf
Kuhn, M. S. (2008). Connecting depth and balance in class. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(1), 18-21. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database. (PDF below)
Rogers, E. M. (1963). The adoption process II. Journal of Cooperative Extension, 1(2), 69-75. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1963summer/1963-2-a2.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment