Pedagogy trumps Technology - again!

Figure 1

In my own teaching practice, I’ve used Koehler and Mishra’s TPACK framework as a basis to examine and question my own teaching, as well as providing a graphic for my students to help contextualize their experience in my course (figure 1). 

I’ve held for some time now that, at least for me, Pedagogy is the biggest, most important piece of the framework, with Technology and Content trailing in a tie for second place.  In other words, knowing how to engage students in the process of learning (the core of effective pedagogy) is more important than what technologies you bring to bear when teaching them, and also more important than the content of the material (figure 2).

Figure 2

Reading through “Deep Work”, which analyzes ways in which going deep and working for long periods of time without distraction on complex, difficult cognitive tasks (something we educational researchers and academics are wont to do) can help increase both the quality and quantity of our work (yay, publish or perish!), it occurred to me: are we missing the metaphorical boat in this regard with youth?

It’s no surprise that with the rate of change we’re experiencing due, in part, to technology’s influence on society, that we really have very little idea of where we’re heading economically.  I don’t mean this is terms of “up or down”, but rather, in the sense that we don’t have a crystal ball to peer into the future and know what job skills, or even what sorts of products or markets will be the next big thing.  Adding to this conundrum is that with technology moving so fast, learning a specific skill today means it might be completely useless within a few years – and tech-related skills are difficult and complex (go ahead and try to intuitively divine how to use Photoshop, if you want but one example).  If teaching K-12 kids tech skills is likely a dead end, educationally and pragmatically speaking, what can we do?  Maybe part of that answer is to teach them about deep learning and deep work?

Certainly, there are cognitive development limits on what young kids can do in this regard; the younger they are, the less true it is that they’re just short adults.  Nonetheless, if the move into a knowledge economy is one that schools are to address, then the inclusion of a deep learning ethic seems to be sensible since it helps learners learn best how to learn.

Youtube and ethnorelativism

In one of the courses I teach, we talk about the Intercultural Competence spectrum, which moves from complete ethnocentrism, (i.e., denial that any differences exist between cultures) through ethnorelativism (i.e., integration of other cultures into our own views) with several steps in between.  (Bennett, 2004)  The spectrum looks like this:

In this particular class, I have my students read the article, and then place themselves on the spectrum and justify why they chose that spot.  It requires openness and honesty on their part, and the creation of a safe environment on my part.  It's a wonderful class, and probably my favorite of the 15 individual classes in the course.

A modification of the class that I introduced a year ago was the inclusion of two videos:




Recently, one of my students was talking about how watching Ramaj's video helped to deepen her understanding of what the African American and Black experience in this country is about.   It got me wondering: could one use Youtube, via direct searches since the available information is often highly filtered even when don't see that being done (Meeder, 2005; Sunstein, 2008), in order to be a tool to promote Intercultural Competence?

It would be very interesting to have students conduct a self-preassessment, using Bennett's spectrum to put themselves in a particular spot and justify why.  Then, one could have them find Youtube videos that are challenging and raw - like the ones posted above, and watch or share them.  Following some discussion, possibly in small groups online, students then postassess themselves, using Bennett's spectrum again and talk about why they think the changes experienced happened.


Bennet, M., in Wurzel, J. (Ed.). (2004). Toward multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural
education (2nd ed., pp. 62-77). Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource Corporation.

Meeder, R. (2005). Access denied: Internet filtering software in K-12 classrooms. Tech Trends, 49(6), 56-58,78.

Sunstein, C.R. (2008). Democracy and the internet. In J. Van den Hoven, & J. Weckert, (Eds.), Information technology and moral philosophy (93-110).Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press

Recent questions

I'm working through a presentation as part of my oral exams, and the following is a list of questions that I've brainstormed.  I thought I'd post them here for posterity.  Now, it should be obvious that the question I finally settle on for this presentation, along with the literature review will then drive the theoretical framework for study.  I'm thinking I might actually chase the last one, since it would directly impact my teaching practice (I'm the one teaching the pre-service teacher tech course).

o   How can teachers contribute more to the designs of technology being integrated in their classrooms?

o   Why is it that technologies get slated for use in classrooms, but teachers seem to have little input?

o   What factors lead to better tech integration in a 1-2 classroom?

o   How can grade 1-2 teachers be more effective at technology integration in their classrooms/practice?

o   What do teachers require to be more successful in technology integration at the 1-2 level?

o   What does it look like to design a technology intervention for a 1-2 classroom with a teacher? 

o   In what ways can grade 1-2 teachers integrate technology in order to become more effective in their teaching practice? **(define efficacy here)

o   How does teacher input affect the design of technology being integrated into their classroom?

o   In what ways can direct teacher participation in a design process affect a technological innovation aimed at a 1-2 classroom?

o   How will teacher input affect a technology being integrated in their classroom?

o   Does a pre-service teacher course on integrating technology lead to changes in a teacher’s use of technology once they begin teaching?***

o   How does a course on integrating technology into teaching practice, aimed at pre-service teachers, affect their use of technology once they begin teaching?***

67 days, 17 hours

That's how long I've been in CI5351 - Tech Tools for Teachers.  Whew.  Been far too busy for my own preferences, but that's not an issue in this class - it's a time management issue.  I have PhD written exams, a conference presentation, I'm still a full time student with 6 credits of coursework, and I'm teaching online and at Augsburg.  No wonder I'm tired; but, I digress.

So, what have we done so far in this class? Well, lots:

• Twitter assignments using the #ci5351 hashtag
• Formed SIGs of our own design and connected with other members in the class
• Built a portfolio (did mine in Canvas)
• Put together a podcast
• Put together a screencast
• Assembled an instructional video
• Read a bunch of stuff

There's a bigger question looming here for me: so what?  Well, my purpose in taking this course was to critically examine a course I teach at Augsburg College with a similar learning goal as this one.  However, my course at Augsburg is different in that it is aimed at pre-service teachers, and those who are typically undergraduate students (although I have a fair number of graduate students in the course as of this writing).  While I value the opportunity to actually do things and build stuff, per this course, I think the most value for me so far has been in the thinking that this course has prompted and the applications I've uncovered.  Examples:

• Having all of my Augsburg students put together a screencast presentation as part of an Instructional Design project
• While the technology is important in and of itself, I've been more direct about the connections to pedagogy and content
• TPACK and the Venn diagram showing intersections between TK, PK, and CK is now being used as a visual representation of the course design, and then discussed with my students
• I've gotten more resources together to support my students
• I made an unsuccessful pitch to the department about piloting Canvas, even as an outside thing.  "Not enough money" and "We like Moodle" were the responses I met with.  Oh well. I might just go and do things my own way, or customize Moodle in ways similar to what we've seen in this class. 

There's yet more to do.  I'm still excited to jump into this material and the learning experience, which probably says a lot about the quality of the course.  Or my lack of sanity.  :-)

The Myth of Older Student = tech unsavviness

It's interesting how often I hear the myth, repeated by one of my students, that someone older than 40 can't "do" technology.  In the same breath, it's often repeated that younger students are somehow inherently better at it.

Full disclosure: I used to hold that same attitude.  But now, my answer is Yes and no.

What I've seen after nearly 10 years of teaching in Higher Ed with education students is that younger students may be more knowledgeable about what social media (or other technologies) are out there and how to use them.  However, the lack of classroom experience combined with developing critical thinking skills means that many of these students aren't able to the apply that knowledge in an educational setting.  Sometimes, the lack of transfer remains true as a student AND as a teacher.  In contrast, many of my older students have been able to pick up the use of a technology solution they were previously unaware of.  When combined with a depth of experience, are able to then elucidate why and how given solution might be useful in their teaching context. 

So, why is that this myth remains so firmly entrenched in our social consciousness?  Do we, even as educators, believe that knowing how to use a technology is the same as knowing how to teach with it?  If so, do we truly undervalue our own profession that much? 

MOOC or die? Really?

Having spent a few days reflecting about the 2013 eLearn conference, I've come away with some further insights on my own instructional practice, my blooming research skills, and some general observations. Let's start with the first, shall we?

1. Pedagogy over technology was a sentiment voiced by many folks at the conference, and which certainly resonated with me.  I found myself questioning further my own uses of technology in teaching, and thinking of ways I might better engage my students.  For example, would it serve to better connect, in a human-contact sort of way (not that way, you sickomonkey) if I gave audio comments to students on papers?  I may try this, as I have a round of papers I'm giving feedback on right now.

2. I need to rework some PowerPoints.  My god, a lot of people tried to ppt me to death.  Make the hurting stop, folks...make. the. hurting. stop.

3. The academy is ridiculously stuffy.  I heard two keynotes by greybeards that drove me nuts.  The one about the Victorianweb was a joke in terms of design, engagement in and of itself...and the presentation was an hour of my life I won't ever get back.  Again, let the hurting stop.

4. Perhaps most importantly, I was reminded how far ahead of so many people the LT program is, and even my limited skillset is capable of building things like 26ers, which is consistently blowing people away.  Remember how good that feels, when the crunch time hits, ok?

5. MOOCs are being seen as a panacea, and few of them have any effective pedagogy behind them.  The concer was voiced that MOOCs are around because they'll make money for the people hosting and maintaining them, which I agree with.  Further, I think the danger in data mining them is very real, and somthing we educators shouldn't take lightly.

Ok, as a researcher:  There is a real need to build good graphics out of data, through infoviz.  Too many times, I saw data that conveyed little information, and certainly didn't help me build up knowledge or wisdom.  Ick.

Every way of seeing is a way of not seeing

That title comes from Edmund Husserl in his initial discussions about Phenomenology, a qualitative research method focused on the authentic, lived experiences of research subjects.  The idea of the statement is that any way of going about doing research automatically then also constrains what sorts of conclusions one can find in the data.  This is a bit heady to me, but I drew a comparison that resonated for me: lens choice in photography.

I'm in the middle of a web-based augmented reality/virtual experience project for a nature center in the Twin Cities.  One piece of this project is the idea to install a QR code station at a certain locations, and when you go to the webpage/site the code directs you to, you are presented with an opportunity to see the surroundings fro you same point of view, but be able to scroll through seasonal changes right there on your mobile device.  Cool, hmm?

However, in order to do this in an authentic fashion, there's no way to get around the need for many photographic assets to have on hand to build the environment, and so I've been trying to get there frequently to get shots for us to use on the project.  In order to build this right, I'm using everything from ultra wide angle glass (16mm focal equivalent) to telephoto (320mm focal equivalent).  As I was reviewing photos today, it occurred to me that:

the nature center area = lived experiences
the lens/camera choice = research framework
the photo that get used in the project = research data
the user's experience of interacting with the online environment = interpreted results, or maybe the meta-interpretation of the data (since the team will have interpreted the images, then the user will do so again in a fashion meaningful for themselves).

I'm still struggling with this analogy a bit, but it was still interesting to have it bloom in my stream of consciousness.