Blog

#EDU807 Review Number One

TPACK, Just Press Record (JPR), and Mobile Technology in a learning environment

In today’s world, the mind can only retain and remember so much information in terms of using new educational technologies and medium. Researchers, educators, and students have moments when researching information, they would rather not forget critical information or salient points because of mind overload or forgetfulness. Moreover, there are new educational technologies, apps, or innovations almost monthly in the world of educational technology and medium. Even with existing technologies, (such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and so on) there are monthly updates of which include new functions and capabilities of using the technology for educational purposes. So, the question begs, how can the mind retain so much information? Moreover, how can we “satisfice” and capture the salient points of using technology and then transferring the technology to the teaching-learning environment?

To address the questions above, the writer will use the Technology Knowledge, Pedagogy Knowledge, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework as a model to demonstrate how a new technology would improve teaching-learning in the classroom environment. That is, the educational technology tool that integrates best with TPACK for teaching-learning in the classroom environment is “Just Press Record” technology.

Just Press Record (JPR) is a mobile technology that functions as an instant mobile audio recorder. What is more, with just one tap and recording, it brings instant transcription and iCloud synching to your iPhone, iPad, iWatch and other Apple devices. JPR offers one tap to start, stop, pause and resume recording. JPR offers unlimited recording. JPR allows the researcher to seek backward and forward during playback. JPR allows the researcher to adjust playback speed. JPR turns speech into searchable text. JPR supports over 30 languages. JPR has built in commands for grammar and punctuation. JPR allows you to share audio and text with other colleagues. JPR allows you to organize your recordings by names and dates. Finally, JPR has unlimited recording and storage capability. One possible drawback to JPR is that it works, for the most part, with only Apple products.

For instance, if a teacher is researching on how to use different technological tools for integration in a course curriculum. Then, she discovers a plethora of technological tools for classroom integration, however, she only needs the salient capabilities and functions of each tool. Thus, she can capture the salient points about those technological tools instantaneously on her iPhone, iPad, and iWatch using JPR. All she must do is read about the technology. Record the salient points using the JPR. Then, hit the red button to start the recording, then she can hit stop recording and capture the salient points about the technology. She has unlimited recording capability and storage, She can name the recording and store it in her digital library for later usage.

Just Press Record would also work very effectively and efficiently with content knowledge. For instance, suppose a teacher is developing content knowledge about American history in the Colonial days. He has an idea of how he wants to design the curricula for the course, but unfortunately the facts, concepts, theories, and subjects about American history in the Colonial days are vast and scattered. So, he decides to use Just Press Record and he only wants to remember the salient points about American history in the Colonial days. So, Just Press Record will allow him to organize his thoughts, understanding, and knowledge about American history in the Colonial days in a logical, sequential and informational formation. He needs to just hit the red button to start the recording, then he can hit stop recording and capture the salient points about American history with regards to Colonialism.

Just Press Record would work best with pedagogy knowledge for transformation to the classroom environment. Pedagogy knowledge requires deep thinking, critical thinking, higher order thinking, and learning that is transferred from teachers to students in the classroom. For example, let’s suppose a teacher is an online pedagogical teacher in myriad languages. Arguably, Just Press Record would be the excellent tool for such a teacher. That is, Just Press Record could turn speech into searchable readable text from over 30 languages. JPR could edit transcriptions from multiple languages from inside the app. Moreover, JPR supports over 30 languages and formats and converts the language as you record them.

In summary, the writer briefly described how a researcher can use TPACK, JPR and mobile technology (or an app) in a teaching-learning environment and improve the learning experience for both students and educators. Though much emphasis was described on how JPR benefits the teacher, moreover, the JPR technology would also benefit the student in a learning environment.

#EDU807 DET BLOG #1

The Central Michigan University (CMU) Blackberry (Bb) serves as a world class-enterprise architecture to deliver Web-based courses for CMU online students and distant learners. The CMU Bb provides students with a plethora of options including modules, synchronous and asynchronous interaction, lectures, announcements, e-mail, online libraries, Live Help Desk, and other online features and capabilities. For instance, the CMU Bb promotes teacher-student discussions, events, and activities on assigned courses. That is, the teacher provides a topic of discussion and lecture, the students respond, and a community of learning comes to fruition. The learning is transparent, and it helps the teacher, student, and other digital learners gain a better understanding of course content and context. In addition, the learning leads to better participation, communication and collaboration in a virtual classroom.

The CMU Bb holds the student accountable to submit assignments to the teacher. The CMU Bb is transparent, and most virtual classrooms are seen by all class participants. The virtual classroom participation incorporates knowledge from assigned readings and research projects. The teacher and student alike learn from the assignments and community of discussion.

The CMU Bb offers an Assignment Folder, Syllabus and other folders to allow students to submit assignments. The teacher, in most cases, immediately grades the assignment and it reappears in a grading folder. The CMU Bb, additionally, allows the student to browse their folders and submit assignments as attachments. In sum, the CMU Bb is an educational technology and medium that incite learning in an ill structured and structured classroom environment.

 

ANNOTATEDBIB WK16 #EDU 800

Tossell, Kortum, Shepard, Rahmati, and Zhong (2015) presented a study on using mobile technologies for learning in the classroom environment. The researchers noted that “in the year 2013, there were as many mobile subscriptions as people in the world” (p. 713). So, this study was about how students could use mobile technologies for educational goals. Specifically, the researchers sought whether the iPhone could be used to support and achieve student educational goals in the classroom environment. That is, what types of positive impacts could iPhones bring to the teaching and learning environment.

In retrospect, research has shown that iPhones have not been used in the classroom environment to achieve educational goals. Moreover, research has shown that iPhones could be construed as a hindrance in the classroom environment. Even though the iPhone has not been used in an unstructured classroom environment, the researchers argued that this study was worthwhile and could have future implications for policy and decision making for teaching and learning in the classroom environment.

For data collection, the researchers’ methodology was a longitudinal study for a 1-year period. That is, 24 undergraduate students at a major university participated in the study. The students received iPhones for participating in the study, also, the students were able to keep the iPhones for their participation. During the study, the researchers used a five-point Likert-scale to survey the students before and after the study. After one year, all 24 students completed the surveys.

In the analysis, the researchers reported myriad changes in the usage of iPhones prior to and then after the study. Specifically, the students were positive about using iPhones prior to the study for educational goals. In contrast, the students were hesitant about using iPhones for educational goals after the study. In fact, some of the students reported that the iPhone was a detriment to their overall performance in the classroom environment.

From 2015, or since the publishing of this article, information technology has drastically changed in terms of using mobile technology for learning effects in the classroom environment. Today, there are many APPs developed with learning tools for usage in educational activities. For instance, a student could use Read Aloud with a Word App and then listen to assigned readings from the App. That is, while the student is travelling to or from school or work, she could convert the .pdf articled or e-book from Adobe to Word and then listen to articles or e-books from an iPhone while in transit. Nowadays, this example and many more, too numerous to mention, could enable students to use mobile technologies for educational goals in the classroom environment.

ANNOTATED BIB WEEK 15 #EDU 800

Aesaert, Vanderline, Tondeur, and Braak (2013) presented a cross-cultural study on educational technology curricula relative to national governments. The national governments in the study were Norway, Finland, and England. The researchers argued that, across the board, national governments need an educational technology curriculum so that teachers and educators can design educational technology programs in which learners can develop digital literacies and competencies in the classroom environment. The researchers aimed to identify effective methods in implementing national educational technology curricula for digital literacies in the classroom environment. Specifically, the researchers described digital literacy as the “ability to use digital applications and software” (p. 132) of tomorrow.

Almost every facet of our lives, nowadays, from banking to grocery shopping, requires information based on digital literacies and competencies. That is, digital literacies  require the “ability to read, write, and otherwise deal with information using the technologies of our time” (Aesaert et al., 2013, p. 193). Thus, the researchers urge national governments, across multi cultures, to establish educational technological policies with the following concretizations: a vision, an aim, and learning environment.

The researchers addressed three research questions related to a digital literacy vision, aim and instruction. To obtain qualitative data, the researchers used comparative document analysis as the research design. Each country involved in the study had well established educational technology curriculums.

In the cross-country curricula analysis, the researchers highlighted that each national government uses different terminologies to describe educational technology. For instance, Norway described educational technology as digital literacy, whereas, England described educational technology as ICT competencies and ICT capabilities. What is more, each national government had a different cognitive and technical meaning for educational technology curricula. Each country perceived digital literacy, attitude and skills differently. This was important because each national government presented different aims and frameworks for developing educational curricula.

In the final analysis, the researchers highlighted that each country had different wholistic goals in establishing an educational technology curriculum. For instance, each country had a range of differences in social, economic and cultural pursuits in terms of 21st century educational technology and information processing. Furthermore, each national government had different aims, visions and instructions for designing and developing educational technology curriculum. To illustrate, each national government had different ICT frameworks on how to share and transfer technological information. The researchers also noted that each government does not provide teachers with information technology on how to implement educational technology in the classroom for digital literacy.

This article points out that a national educational technology curriculum, across multi cultures, is worthy of additional research. As the 21st century information age changes, countries need to collaborate and share information to adapt to those changes. The Internet is interconnected and interwoven across multi cultures. Thus, a national government educational technology program, across multi cultures, is indispensable.

Aesaert, K. K., Vanderlinde, R., Tondeur, J., & Braak, J. v. (2013). The content of educational technology curricula: a cross-curricular state of the art. Educational Technology Research & Development, 61(1), 131-151.

ANNOTATED BIB WK 14 #EDU 800

Dr. Chow presented a study on how to implement an e-Learning program in academia. He reflected on many years of experience in industry and academia as a technology manager. He discussed a position of which he served as Director of Online Learning at a major university. He told his story about how he transitioned from managing a technological program in industry to that of implementing an online instructional technology program for a major university. He noted the vast differences on how industry and academia implement technology programs for operational and strategic purposes. His main thesis was how do you develop an on-line eLearning program in academia? His research questions were as follows: What does online learning look like? What is the cost of online learning? And, who pays for developing an online learning curriculum?

As Dr. Chow started to implement the online E-learning program, he established an acronym, namely, ADDIE. That is, A stand for analyze. D means design. The second D means develop. I mean implement. Lastly, E means evaluate. In the analysis, he articulated, when developing an online technological program, he associated analysis with evaluation and consensus. He argued that in the analysis of establishing a program, the group must continuously evaluate the processes through communication and feedback. During the communication process, he argued, there must be consensus at the table to move forward. After the group gets consensus, then the designing and developing process falls in order. Finally, after designing and developing the project, then implementation and continuous evaluation must take place.

However, in the lessons learned, Dr. Chow discovered that to build an online educational technology program, much more is needed than ADDIE. He admitted that ADDIE did not account for the human and change management factors. ADDIE, according to Dr. Chow, also lacked a needs assessment, strategic plan, resource management plan and change management plan. That is, Dr. Chow was suddenly surprised when the Dean and faculty leadership was not happy with the progress of the e-Learning project after year 1. The Dean wanted more buy in from the faculty and student body. In addition, the project faced budgeted constraints in year 2. Finally, in year 3, the technological changes were so rapid in that the requirements of e-Learning had changed as well.

The lessons learned in this review is to go to the literature and research how human factors and change management impact online e-Learning programs. For instance, it is not enough to rely on an acronym for major project and undertaking. Also, the literature will provide data on how to keep leadership informed with a major project and undertaking.

 

Chow, A. a. (2013). One Educational Technology Colleague’s Journey from Dotcom Leadership to University E-Learning Systems Leadership: Merging Design Principles, Systemic Change and Leadership Thinking. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 57(5), 64-73.