Lessons Learned

Instructional Technology - International Education - Wellness

Tag: TPACK

Virtual School Pedagogy – Oldies but Goodies

Note: My international school is just starting virtual school for the current school year, so we are now just experiencing what many schools have been doing for most of the year. I posted the following to our Wellness blog.

I hung up my instructional technology hat a ways back, so I can’t offer the latest tools, tips, or techniques that many of our staff use in their virtual learning delivery. I can offer pedagogical strategies that have worked in the past and can definitely be supported through technology to enhance learning in virtual schools.

Concept/Mind Maps

Concept/Mind maps help students make their thinking visible, primarily when representing connections between ideas, events, topics, etc. Concept maps also can be used as collaboration tools.

An excellent way to use concept maps for virtual learning is to use an online provider like Mindmeister. Students can share their Mindmeister concept maps with you to access their thinking, especially for formative assessment of their understanding as the unit of study progresses. Virtual collaboration is supported if you partner with students or place them in groups to work together to use mind maps for multiple purposes. Here is a mind map template for essential questions one teacher provided his students. Look at a blog post describing how students used concept maps to answer the essential questions for their units of study at a couple schools.

Learning Activity Types via TPACK

Several American professors came together in 2010-11 to organize learning activity types (LAT) into nine subject areas supported by technology. They published articles about their efforts. Here is one. They provide research-supported pedagogies in their Learning Activity Types website hosted at the College of William & Mary School of Education. They apply the TPACK construct for planning purposes. Look to their website by going to the left side menu to select from the nine learning activity-type disciplines. The supporting technologies are from 2011, so adapt ones that still exist today and/or find the latest iteration or replacement tool that best supports each pedagogy. Image Source

Multimedia Essays (Media Mashups)

Writing essays is one of the most precious skills that we teach our students. But sometimes, our students can benefit from an alternative learning experience and assessment that engages the full range of their ICL skills. We can differentiate and add complexity to the standard writing process by having students create multimedia essays where they “mash up” various sources of media to communicate their thinking. At the time, a William and Mary doctoral student describes her work with multimedia essays in this podcast. Image Source

Personalized Learning System (PLS)

Students (and teachers) use technology to access information, to make meaning, to create and communicate their learning via a personalized set of resources for learning… a “go-to” 24/7 technology and information access toolkit – a Personal Learning System (PLS).

We guide our students to work as architects designing and maximizing their “learning flow” (think of the term workflow) while also engaging in time management techniques to increase efficiency and purposeful productivity. Self-directed and growth-minded students use devices, apps, Web tools, and information sources, putting themselves in charge of their learning. Here is a web resource describing what a Personal Learning System can look like and a planning document for students to work with. Image Source

Sketchnoting (Visual Note-Taking)

Our students live in a media-rich world. They think in images, video, and sound while constantly making neural connections. The creation apps on phones, tablets, and computers offer students pathways to draw, audio record, insert images/video, and embed hyperlinks to information sources, all personalized. This is where visual note-taking comes in. We can expand note-taking choices beyond text recording into multiple modalities by guiding students to use mind maps, colors, shapes, images, and digital grouping by dragging and dropping objects and connecting lines to record their thinking. Image Source

The Six Thinking Hats

Edward de Bono created this approach to decision-making and problem-solving that guides users to think in terms of types of thinking and perspective. We can apply them for individuals and groups of students to use as they process information. Here is a helpful overview and a teacher’s application in her classroom. Image Source

Thinking Routines

In the book Making Thinking Visible, Ron Ritchhart, Mark Church, and Karin Morisson help readers understand the power of thinking routines to help students process big ideas and make their thinking visible. Teachers routinely use the thinking routines in their regular face-to-face classes. One can also choose from a variety of technologies to also use in virtual school. Here is a dated web resource on the supportive tools one can use. However, the application of the routines is sound. If you are new to the routines, you can review an article by Ron Ritchhart and David Perkins entitled Making Thinking Visible. Also, look to go through the Harvard Project Zero Thinking Routine Toolbox. Image Source

WebQuests

WebQuests are a natural pedagogy for virtual schools because they’re already web-based. They connect inquiry and research skills to students working in teams using their communication skills to present their findings. WebQuests are online research expeditions built by teachers that put the students into roles to find information from selected sites and other resources as they attempt to solve a real problem and/or answer a question. The students in teams analyze, curate, and then use the information to create a learning product to demonstrate their understanding. WebQuests are NOT internet scavenger hunts with students just going through a list of links. True WebQuests have the students performing in the authentic roles of historians, economists, mathematicians, etc. The culminating project is usually a performance task in which the students present their findings while playing their roles or applying the learning to produce a product. Image Source

___________________________________

A significant wellness connection for these pedagogies is that they engage students in PERMAH while exercising their Character Strengths. Collaboration amplifies Relationships with students using their strengths of kindness, leadership, and teamwork, to name just a few character strength applications. The process of creating definitely has students applying their strength of creativity within the pillars of Engagement and Accomplishment.

So how do we take these oldies but goody strategies and other current innovative and effective practices to spread them throughout our virtual school? One approach would be to form a virtual school design team in each division who become busy bees finding out what’s happening in virtual classrooms elaborating on ideas, and making connections to new approaches. They then cross-pollinate throughout the division and potentially between divisions. 😁

Album Cover Image Source

Collaborative Planning and Design for Technology Integration (Lessons Learned)

I am reviewing past posts, articles, and podcasts to share my main lessons learned. Here is an article written that I wrote with Mark Hofer and Margaret Carpenter.

ll

______________________

Collaborative Planning and Design for Technology Integration

Technology initiatives are continually in the headlines as schools and districts purchase iPads, Chromebooks, laptops, Learning Management Systems, and other technologies. Without a good focus, however, such expensive programs could have unintended consequences: stress among colleagues with varying agendas on how to spend the funds, purchasing of apps and hardware without a strategic vision for professional development, technology as a distraction for students, and considerable energy spent on matters that might undermine rather than enhance what students can do or understand. Furthermore, as parents show increasing concern with the mounting screen time their children are experiencing, technology’s use must be rationalized and grounded in the curriculum standards. With these obstacles in mind, school leaders should develop a systematic approach to technology infusion that brings together the community’s expertise to improve the students’ learning experience. We argue that curriculum and pedagogy, rather than technology, should drive the technology integration process.

The goal of technology initiatives and integration programs from the start should be to enhance student learning through higher­order thinking, deep learning, collaboration, and student engagement. To ensure that technology supports and enhances student learning, a collaborative approach to curriculum review and design that draws upon the distributive expertise of team members and their respective technology,​ pedagogy​ , and content knowledge​ (TPACK) is a practical approach. TPACK represents the interconnected knowledge in these three domains teachers must draw upon to integrate technology effectively. While TPACK is often conceptualized as the knowledge a single individual holds, it may not be reasonable to assume that all classroom teachers have extensive knowledge and experience in all three areas. This is particularly true regarding the ever­-expanding technology tools and resources increasingly available to them. In collaboratively designing and implementing a technology initiative, educators can leverage the TPACK construct for technology integration to identify the optimal fit between these three domains.

The integration of technology inherently changes the teaching and learning experience. While the “T” in TPACK may stand out as the goal or driver of the integration process, it should be noted that the technology also brings challenges and new opportunities for schools, teachers, and students. As educational leaders, we should consider the affordances and constraints of technology efforts as students encounter the different literacies encompassed in technology­ enhanced learning experiences.

Fortunately, schools have skilled curriculum, pedagogy, and technology experts. The specialists enjoy the advantage of understanding the needs of all students to offer strategic, articulate, and focused skill development. Classroom teachers and instructional technologists quickly come to mind. In many schools, librarians also play a leading role in helping students to develop their visual, media, design, information, and technology literacies​. In some schools, the instructional technologists partner with librarians and classroom teachers to form a collaborative, team­-based approach to developing standards, learning outcomes, and curriculum that integrates technology among multiple literacies to enhance student learning.

So how does a school encourage, support, and systematize this collaborative, team­-based planning? One approach is to build a “curriculum collaboration team” of teachers, learning specialists, and administrators who draw on their various areas of expertise to create effective, curriculum­-based technology­ infused initiatives and curricula. 

Who are the members of a curriculum collaboration team? The answer depends on the individual school, but here are some examples of curriculum, pedagogy, and technology experts that many schools can empower in this process:

● Curriculum Director/Department Chair/Team Leader­ provides curriculum expertise and guidance for the big picture of the school/division scope and sequence

● Principal or Assistant Principal­ provides insight on the school’s goals, instructional leadership, and validation for the importance of the work

● Librarian/Media Specialist­ provides expertise in both resources and tools as well as strategies to support student learning for multi­-literacies

● Instructional Technologist­ provides experience in understanding the technology options, as well as their educational affordances and constraints

● Learning Support Teachers (e.g., ESL, reading recovery, gifted, special education provide insight on ways to support differentiation for specific student populations

The Curriculum Collaboration Team partners with the classroom teachers​ in structured and ongoing curriculum meetings. They bring their various degrees of curriculum, pedagogy (including understanding the school context and student learning), and technology knowledge to the meetings. One key element of this process is that the classroom teachers are in charge and manage the meetings. In terms of process in the elementary setting, it is helpful to divide the units of study with two teachers assigned to each unit depending on the size of the school. This sharing of curriculum review responsibilities adds to the efficiency of the process while also building trust among grade level, team, or department members. One teacher provides the leadership to facilitate the meeting. At the same time, another takes on the role of scribe updating the unit plan in a collaborative word processor (e.g., Google Drive) or curriculum mapping system for all to see on the projector screen. These two roles guide the meeting and empower the teachers to take ownership of the curriculum entirely. The administrators and learning specialists bring their expertise to the table in an atmosphere of shared creativity and responsibility.

As the meeting progresses and revisions are made to the unit plan, any possible deletion of actions or materials is changed to red text. Any additions to the unit plan are added in green text. Learning specialists who cannot attend the meeting can post ideas ahead of time and respond after the meeting via the mapping tool.

The teachers meet with their grade level, team, or department teaching partners to finalize the unit plan. A “to do” list is created in one section of the unit plan with specific assignments for each team member to work on after the meeting. This may include identifying specific technology resources, developing an assessment rubric, or exploring features of a suggested technology tool or resource. The scribe then shares this document with all members of the Curriculum Collaboration Team. The lead teacher oversees the follow-through of these tasks as each participant is responsible for returning to the unit plan to add “Completed” to their tasks once accomplished. This highly structured procedure holds everyone accountable while moving the discussion and creativity of the meeting into action steps.

Team members participate in all aspects of the meeting, not just in their area of responsibility. As everyone becomes more comfortable sharing ideas and strategies, they learn from one another, thus increasing their level of expertise in each domain of the TPACK construct. Professional growth continues when the curriculum creation process includes differentiation for the content, process, and products. This is where the learning specialists add value to the process as they contribute curriculum strategies for teachers to draw from as they work to meet all students learning needs.

The implementation stage of the curriculum collaboration process allows the classroom teachers to co­-teach with the librarian or instructional technologist, gaining confidence not only in teaching the lessons on their own but also in expanding their technical knowledge to support their future curriculum planning. The same is true for the librarian and instructional technologist who gain a deeper understanding of content for units that they help teach to the point that they can begin to provide input on content and pedagogy for upcoming units of study in the collaborative meetings. This distributive approach to shared expertise can significantly enhance a school’s efforts to integrate technology into the classroom to enhance student learning.

Educators at all levels recognize the opportunities and challenges inherent in integrating technology into classroom teaching. It can seem quite daunting to envision successfully planning a school­-wide 1:1 initiative or even pulling off a single lesson using Skype for an inexperienced teacher. The authors recommend that for the greatest success, teamed teachers new to using this approach focus upon no more than one unit per semester during their first year of implementation and then build upon that success. With this collaborative approach to planning and TPACK development, all school community members can tackle these challenges and capitalize on these opportunities together.

Image Source

TPACK- Distributed Knowledge and Leadership

DL

When it comes to specific pedagogical strategies, content knowledge, and tech resourcefulness, we often have our “go-to” teaching partners to reach out to. We sometimes speak in terms of the Math Lead, Social Studies Lead, or even Concept Mapping teaching partner who provides the leadership and knowledge which supports our learning team and community. In other words, we TPACK with our teaching partners collaborating with our distributive expertise and leadership skills.

Building on this idea, how does your school/district support introducing new technologies? Does it leverage the TPACK construct to help support the implementation of new technology? Here is one approach to do so.

My school has several web-based tools and information resources that our students access at school and at home. These subscription tools and resources are expensive! This connects to the point that if we spend funds on new technology, it must make a difference for our learners. We should do everything we can to ensure the resource is used effectively.

As program designers, we must design and create a system that supports teachers at each grade level, MS team, or HS department to become the leaders for new technologies. And I am talking about much more than knowing how to make the technology work.

We know that for an idea, technique, or program to have traction, several components must be included in the implementation process. Focusing on leadership and knowledge, we really should find and support the teachers who will provide the leadership, and TPACK know how to leverage the heck out of the new technologies that come into our schools.

The grade level team will be TPACKing if they look to the subject area lead to also have the tool lead, as with math and Dreambox, for example. An example might be in elementary school where one teacher from each grade level would be the Wixie lead, another the DreamBox lead, joining those already identified who lead out on the content of math, reading, social studies, etc. This would combine technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge with leadership to get folks using the tools in the best instructional manner.

The technology leads engage in PD opportunities to help them become the PD providers for their teaching partners. This moves the PD program from whole staff sit and git training sessions to individual and small group sessions offered when needed. This distributive knowledge and leadership model supports the growth of the school learning community while energizing teachers and providing a more differentiated approach to professional learning.

Many schools, of course, already have these tech leaders in place. I used the term “Tech Cadre” at my previous schools. They were, in most cases, the early adopters. Using the TPACK construct formalizes building a tech cadre by bringing in pedagogy and content knowledge to leverage the tools. In time, the “tech” can be dropped from the cadre/team title in describing the TPACKing leadership approach as a shift focusing less on technology and more on instruction and learning. Maybe a more appropriate title would be “TPACK Team.”

Image Source

TPACKing with Web-based Content & Creation Tools

teaming

Has your school or district purchased web-based individualized student learning systems like DreamBoxmyONReflex Math, or Raz-Kids? Do your students use web-based creation tools that provide individual student accounts like Google AppsMindMeister, or Wixie? If so, who provides the planning, implementation, ongoing support, and data analysis bringing together the technologypedagogy, and content knowledge of your learning community? How are you making the most of these web-based tools to make a difference for your students? In other words, who is on your TPACKing Team?

We hear a great deal about the implementation of 1:1 device programs. While not as expensive or headline-grabbing (think LA District iPads), the software/web tools make the hardware come alive in the hands of our learners. Schools and districts can spend a lot of money on learning platforms like myON but need help to leverage them so all students can use them when they are underutilized. We can also need teachers to use the provided data to individualize student learning programs further. With barriers of very busy teachers, overcrowded curricula, high-stakes testing, etc., it makes sense to construct plans to support these learning platforms to make them successful.

This post focuses on web-based tools where students have accounts, but it can apply to any school-wide tool rollout. The student accounts provide teachers with valuable formative data and easy digital access to generative student work that teachers use to meet individual student needs further. The purchase of expensive content providers like BritannicaEBSCO, etc., also needs the same planning and collaborative TPACKing. Still, there needs to be data or access to student learning products that can be leveraged with products like Reflex Math or Google Slides.

Connecting to TPACK, I see the rolling out of web tools as a natural place to employ the collaborative team approach to TPACKing. I post about it in this blog, and we discuss it on the Ed Tech Co-Op podcast. Another resource on Team TPACKing is the article that Mark Hofer, Margaret Carpenter, and I wrote entitled “Collaborative Planning and Design for Technology Integration.”

So now, what does this “collaborative planning and design” look like? Let’s say a school is planning to purchase DreamBox, which is expensive. Team TPACKing provides a construct to get everyone on board to put the tool in the hands of the students and to make sure the technology, pedagogy, and math knowledge come together to make the most of the learning experiences. I would bring stakeholders to discuss and share ideas to set goals, plan the implementation, and set recurring dates to review the initiative’s status. Who might come to the table to TPACK together?

I am thinking of the usual suspects (inside joke – see our article):

  • teachers
  • administrators
  • instructional technologist
  • math coordinator
  • learning specialists

While the planning table might get a little too crowded, I would include a few parents and students at some point to get their insights. A big topic, especially in some elementary schools, is homework and screen time. Another reason why I am focusing this post on web tools is because students and teachers should have 24/7 access to as many learning resources as possible. I also believe in the power of blended and personalized learning, with students constructing their personal learning systems with school-provided tools and the ones they find themselves.

Speaking of students, I am a big believer in piloting initiatives to gather data from users’ experiences to plan the full rollout. This is where the pilot’s students, teachers, and parents can come together with the planning team to design better how the full implementation will go if it goes at all. The learning platform providers can set you up for 30-day trials, so compare what various companies provide. There are many competitors for math and reading skill-building and database providers. Design rubrics and feedback mechanisms to further engage your TPACK style “thinking hat” to find the right system provider for the task.

Our article hits on the idea of the “distributive expertise” that a team of educators brings to the planning table, which connects to TPACK and the convergence of the types of knowledge (technology-pedagogy-content). Back to the DreamBox example, the instructional technologist shares technology knowledge, but as we know, several other team members can bring technical expertise to the table. When we think of math content knowledge, teachers and the math coordinator come to mind. They, along with the instructional technologist, administrators, and learning specialists, bring pedagogy knowledge to the planning. Thus the distributive expertise of the TPACKing Team is set to build on the collective ideas of the Team to creatively plan, implement and provide ongoing support for advancing tool initiatives to enhance student learning.

Summing this up, ask yourself, how is your school making the most of your learning tools? Is there a plan in place for each? Who helped develop the plans? Who are your leads in leading and supporting the initiatives? What feedback are you getting from your users and supporters (parents)? What scaffolding is in place to support the tools? Are you taking advantage of your administration’s and staff’s expertise in using the tools? What are you learning from the data provided by the student accounts? Over time, how might you adapt your use of the tools to enhance learning for your students?

And as you look at the technology, pedagogy, and content aspects of the learning platforms, remember that, in most cases, the technology is simply the delivery system. In the past, the paper provided the math, English, ESL, etc., content in books and workbooks. The tools are about the skills and content learning of the discipline they support. This should guide you in deciding who will lead, present, and guide the learning. We must understand that our world is digital and not let technology be a barrier for teachers or parents. Keep focusing on the learning goals, whether math, English, science, or whichever subject area.

With the start of 2016, it may be time for a new year’s resolution to assess your community’s use of learning tools to bring your TPACKing Team together to find ways to impact learning for your students!

Image Source

TPACK and Learning Activity Types: Pathways to Student Learning

I was fortunate this past week to chat with my partner in podcasting, Mark Hofer, about his experiences working with pre-service and veteran teachers in using TPACK and the Learning Activity Types (LAT). Mark and Judi Harris of the College of William and Mary have written a series of articles around these two topics. They have articles that list helpful learning activities for most subject areas. If you are looking for efficient strategies for using technology and various literacies in your classroom, listen to this week’s Edtech Co-Op podcast. Thanks to Mark for his clear and helpful explanations.

 

Image Source

TPACK – Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge

tpack

The TPACK approach of connecting technology, pedagogy, and content to use the power of their convergence is covered in the May issue of Learning & Leading with Technology. Punya Mishra and Matthew Koehler, the article’s authors, also share a wiki site that provides further information on the framework.

Judi Harris and Mark Hofer of the College of William & Mary will soon have articles published in L & L on the TPACK theme. They recently took the theory and moved into the practical by creating their Learning Activities Type wiki. There, you can find examples of regular instructional practices and assessments matched up with various supportive technologies categorized by ones that lead to convergent learning and ones that offer ways for students to show their divergent thinking.

Another resource for learning about TPACK is a podcast by the GenTech boys. Check it out.

Image Source

© 2024 Lessons Learned

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

Skip to toolbar