Tag Archives: technology. ETL523

Are we there yet?

Pip Cleaves presented recently to the CSU MEd INF537 cohort about her journey leading learning and she mentioned the Diffusion of Innovation (Rogers, 2003). Tom Fishburn from Skydeckcartoons.com captures the Diffusion of Innovation cycle perfectly in his cartoon that primarily deals with the cycle of new product adoption, but the same cycle works for the adoption of technology in the classroom environment.

Diffusion of innovations - this model can be adopted by many sectors from marketing through to education.
Diffusion of innovations – this model can be adopted by many sectors from marketing through to education.

This made me reflect on what category I naturally fall into and I would say possibly the early majority group is where I fit best. However, the challenge for me is that I’m in a job role where I have to be an innovator and early adopter so that I can mentor others in the uptake. To be honest when I first started I felt like a fish out of water having to take risks, learn rapidly and eventually share widely. But I can say the more that I have been challenged in my role the more comfortable I am.

This is the difficulty and the challenge that I face when I am training VET practitioners from all around Australia in the ways technology can support and augment their training. Through the wide variety of programs that I have put together we now cater for people from early adopters all the way through to laggards.

Resrouces, Infrastructure, Poeple, Policies, Learning, Evaluation, Support.
The RIPPLES Model (Surry and Ensminger, 2005)

The RIPPLES model that  Surry, Ensminger and Haab (2005) created and Jaskinski (2006) used as the basis for the VET sector research project Innovate and integrate: Embedding innovative practices, has formed the basis for much of the professional learning series of sessions around elearning implementation and modelling of a champion model that I develop for organisations and for the Department of Training and Workforce Development. RIPPLES is the acronym for the seven components of the model: resources, infrastructure, people, policies, learning, evaluation and support.

The champion model picks up the innovators and early adopters and encourages these individuals or groups to share their stories with others. The E-learning Quality Model developed by the National VET E-Learning Strategy in 2014 and helps our champions by defining quality expectations of elearning more clearly. It is designed to help RTOs and to give them a competitive advantage. But it does assist practitioners in aligning their resources to a framework.

Review and reflection should become commonplace as best practice to improve teaching.
Review and reflection should become commonplace as best practice to improve teaching.

In my dynamic and technology rich life it is interesting to reflect on my teaching to see how I am tracking against my peers with integration of technology to support my pedagogical practice. This personal reflection is something that we as teachers need to do often to ensure that we are still meeting the needs of our clients (the students), to ensure that they are going to have the lifelong skills to succeed in this New World.

References

Jasinski, M. (2006). Innovate and integrate: Embedding innovative practices. 1st ed. [pdf] Canberra: DEST, Commonwealth of Australia. Available at: http://tle.westone.wa.gov.au/content/file/b2abda95-f95b-4366-afb6-7e3e401fdf72/1/Innovate_and_Integrate_Report1.pdf

Fishburne T. (2007, Februaru, 26). Brand Camp [Image]. Marketoonist. Retrieved from https://marketoonist.com/2007/02/new-product-adoption.html

NVELS (2014). E-learning Quality Model. Accessed from: http://webarchive.nla.gov.au/gov/20141215081514/http://www.flag.natese.gov.au/quality_model

Rogers E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press

Surry, DW, Ensminger, DC and Haab, M (2005), ‘A model for integrating instructional technology into higher education’, British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 36 (2), pp.327–329.

Interactivity analysis framework

Interaction on mobile devices
Interaction on mobile devices

In Beauchamp and Kennewell (2010) ‘Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning discussed the interactivity analysis framework which outlined interactivity areas that included; group interaction; authoritative interactivity; dialectic interactivity; dialogic interactivity and synergistic interactivity.

In my current context my students would be working in a Moodle Learning Management System (LMS) environment with a Blackboard Collaborate virtual classroom (VC) integration. When the interactivity framework is applied to this learning environment there is the possibility that within a teaching term all areas of interaction could be achieved due to the nature of the software involved and the constructionist and collaborative pedagogical style (Bower et al., 2010; Laurillard, 2008 and Roblyer, p 40-50, 2013) that I favour for my teaching.

Group interaction: As Beauchamp and Kennewell (2010) stated group interaction can be hard to track as often the teacher is not present. By using the collaborative tools within the LMS such as collaborative group wikis, discussion forums, group database, and automatic recording of group work in the Collaborate virtual classroom allows the teacher the ability to track and monitor the groups work and the level of interaction between individuals. Something that can be problematic in a physical classroom. In my current context the class was split into 4 groups which had members from around Australia. The groups had to work together weekly on tasks. They had a group wiki to add their thoughts to for a written record and had access to the VC as moderators where they could record their session and take screen grabs of their work from the system.

Authoritative interactivity:  This is the ‘Sage on the Stage’ style of teaching where it is teacher directed, or content directed. In the LMS the content such as interactive multimedia (Roblyer, 2013) can be created that interacts with the grade book to record the students work through the interaction ideas can be clarified through a virtual classroom or text chat to expand on ideas that the student has worked through. In my current context I present ‘keynote’ style online sessions via the VC to my students that are linked to content in the LMS. In these sessions I expand on ideas and clarify points for my students.

Dialectic interactivity: Once the student has worked through the content outlined in the authoritative interactivity the teacher could then have the students work in groups around the key ideas. In my current context during a VC class the students are invited to use the Collaborates ‘whiteboard’ facility and chat area’s to respond to probing questions. It is very useful to use the whiteboard as it enables better group work in the class.

Dialogic interactivity: In dialogic interactivity the student has more of a voice in the lesson, with the teacher becoming more of the ‘Meddler in the Middle’ supporting the students in-class engagement. In my current context my students have had to present on topics such as effectively facilitating online where they have presented content and posed questions to the class group to facilitate the discussion around their topic. They then reflected on this through their wiki spaces and in the discussion forums

Synergistic interactivity: In adult education synergistic interactivity is often seen as the ‘norm’ rather than the exception. This is especially true with some users of LMS who ‘set and forget’ the course letting the students get on with their learning. Synergistic interactivity independent reflective activities that students do in a whole class setting (Beauchamp and Kennewell, 2010). In my current context the teacher becomes the ‘Guide on the side’ with students running sessions in the VC and facilitating discussions with-in the LMS to further develop their knowledge and ideas of  the topics being taught.

In my assignment there is a blend of all five points. However, I have focussed more on the group interaction, dialectic interactivity; dialogic interactivity and synergistic interactivity rather than the Authoritative interactivity.

References

Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & Education, 54(3), 759-766. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.033

Bower, M., Hedberg, J.G., Kuswara, A., (2010), A framework for Web 2.0 learning design, Educational Media International, 47 (3), 177-190, DOI: 10.1080/09523987.2010.518811

Laurillard, D. (2009). The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies. International Journal Of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 5-20. doi:10.1007/s11412-008-9056-2

Roblyer, M. (2013). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching. Harlow: Pearson.