My Journey with Digital Pedagogy

I’ve been reading, thinking, concept mapping, reading again, thinking more about Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework as briefly outlined in my previous post.  In particular I have been thinking how this might actually look within the context of my practice.  Reflecting on the diagram embedded from the official TPACK wiki (in my previous post) the focus of intent is the represented in the centre, as the intersection between the three knowledge types.

However, in thinking about how I progress through a unit of work and how it can be related to the TPACK diagram, I come to the conclusion that I tend to act like a circling shark.  I don’t begin at the central point of the TPACK framework, but rather aim to end up there.  I see that focal point as the point at which the students are experiencing a range of learning experiences within which they negotiate the pathway.  If the three arms of the framework have been implemented effectively, learners may not see the distinction between the separate knowledge types.  I am aware there are times where I focus specifically on development of content knowledge.  I am also aware that simply because Content Knowledge is the focus at that specific time, I am not ignoring Pedagogical or Technological knowledge.

Within the discussion on the Classroom 2.0 site where TPACK is presented, Punya Mishra (one of the professors credited with development of the TPACK framework) states that the framework is a continuum, in reference to teacher development.  I am beginning to think that it may also be a continuum in reference to point in time learning management.  I envisage myself as a single point roaming through the diagram, progressively getting closer to the central focus.

The reflection above does take the point of view of the TPACK framework as a working / implementation framework.  If I consider it as a planning framework then I recognise a very different approach.  I’m not quite sure how this might look in application.  The point Punya Mishra makes on the Classroom 2.0 discussion is important though - The important goal is that opportunities to develop TPACK, whether for a beginner or an expert, deal with all three of these components together, not independent of each other.

As I write this, it becomes clear to me that the three types of knowledge are well known.  Whilst at university I took many courses built on Content Knowledge and a few built on Pedagogical Knowledge.  Since teaching I have had many opportunities to experience Professional Development built on Technological Knowledge.  Rarely have I experienced them in partnership though.  So this will be a real challenge for me.  Especially as I (possibly) use it to develop my ability to build capacity of teachers.  Currently within my school I am working in a range of paths represented by this framework.  For some teachers I am definitely focused on pure Technological Knowledge.  I don’t believe that individually I can target the convergence of the three knowledge types.

Consider that I am trained within a specific subject discipline, and therefore have specialist knowledge.  This would suggest as an individual I could only build the TPACK capability of teachers within the same subject discipline.  As an individual I could address the convergence of Technological and Pedagogical Knowledge within teachers not teaching within my subject discipline.  And this in itself highlights a very important factor in the continual development of teachers - an individual approach cannot be completely effective.  Any person responsible for the Professional Development of teachers needs to engage in a team setting, and I suggest this is most effectively done with the specific clientele who have elected to attend your seminar, workshop or session.

My brain is exceptionally jumbled with the thinking around this framework (could you tell?) at the moment, hoping for some clarity on Tuesday.

The title to this post is grabbed from the title of a professional development session I have been fortunate enough to have been invited to next week.  I have indulged in some pre-reading around the concepts which I have to say has been enlightening and somewhat thought provoking.  I have assumed from the agenda that the we will be exploring two frameworks as tools to design learning experiences that encourage critical thinking.  The two frameworks are Bloom’s Taxonomy and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK).  I have worked in depth with Bloom’s taxonomy throughout my teaching career, however this is the first I have experienced of TPCK.  The concept maps that are published in relation to it explain the concept simply enough.

When I viewed this for the first time, my initial thoughts were “Of course, that’s obvious.”  My initial reaction was one that teaching and learning should be targeting the juncture of technological, pedagogical and content knowledge.  But as I continued to read it has caused me to reflect - “Do I actually target this juncture?  Do I purposely plan and implement for learning to occur where these three concepts meet?”  This is a question that I am not so sure about.  No doubt my involvement in the professional development next week will provide me stimulus for reflection and planning to ensure that this is my targeted area. Currently I fear that perhaps I target the three areas, but do not converge them effectively.

My researching found me this blogpost from Sean Nash, which has two videos.  Watch these in order and you get an idea of the focus of TPCK. http://nashworld.edublogs.org/2009/04/08/a-tpack-video-mashup/

There is also a great wiki with lesson ideas - http://clifmims.wetpaint.com/page/TPACK.

I encourage anyone on their journey with digital pedagogy to explore the concept of TPCK.  During the PD session there will be a twitter backchannel running, using the hashtag #WTDW, feel free to watch this to get an idea of the discussions we are having.  After the event I will no doubt reflect further on my own practice and ramble on about it here.  I am excited about this opportunity, and can see it not only driving my development of my personal practice, but informing and guiding my training of others.

My pet subject of Health Education requires students and teachers to continually read, research and gather information to inform their understanding and application of concepts.  This research was recently revealed as a concern for students when I conducted an open, critical reflection in class.  Therefore to enable this process, I have endeavoured to establish a routine with specific tools that can assist research.

Firstly, I set my students up with portable FireFox on their USB memory stick or in a folder on their network storage.  Portable FireFox allows me to install two essential addons for research; Zotero and FoxIt Toolbar.  I have blogged about Zotero previously, and have recorded podcasts on both of these tools also.

I will gather a range of resources for research.  Using the FoxIt toolbar in FireFox, I can annotate and highlight PDF files.  If I then choose to “Save As”, all markups will be maintained.  I use this to add in bookmarks and highlights for important information.  When students open the file, they can quickly navigate to what I consider important information within the document.

As an extension to this concept, when students are working on group projects, they can markup their research individually or collaboratively.  If it is a web page they wish to markup, they simply print using PDF Creator and save the page as a PDF file.  Then they open the file in FireFox and markup.

Zotero allows them to create collections of resources, which can include webpages and PDF files.  This ensures wherever they are using Portable FireFox they can access their research.

If I build a collection in Zotero, I can export it as a file with attachments, and then distribute that to my students.  They simply import the collection into their Zotero and they have my collection ready to go.  This is also useful when they share research with each other.  Simply export the collection and share.

Zotero can also publish a bibliography.  Users need to ensure the information is recorded in the Zotero reference section, but this function enables accurate bibliographies.

And best of all, these tools are free.

Enable student research, and you can enable student achievement.

If you would rather watch this as a screencast, please refer to my wiki.

There has been a lot of action and discussion on the use of iTunes applications for the iPhone and iPod Touch and their relevance and usefulness in education.  Indeed many schools are purchasing class sets to use as digital learning devices.  Now I am a self confessed geek who loves his share of geek toys, and I regularly use a range of geek toys in my learning environments.  Therefore I’d like to indulge in a review of these toys and how I apply them to self management and pedagogy.

This post will focus on the iPod Touch.  I own one, and this is the one I use in class.  This will be a very different context to those teachers who are fortunate enough to have multiple items, however I believe the applications and their utilisation could translate.  Please be aware as you read, these are the applications I use and they may be alternate applications in existence.  All the apps I use are free (or at least I installed them on a promotional offer), which means there may be more functional applications in the repository.  Also, I generally use this in the absence of a wireless internet connection.  Where functionality requires wireless internet I swill mention it in the review.

One obvious use is access to podcasts relevant to the learning context within the class.  Access to these is a repetitive searching process to ensure a stream of media, however there are podcasts that can deliver a constant stream of useful media.  For me, one such podcast is the TED talks.  They are fantastic for inspiration, motivation and discussion.  Due to the range of topics that are presented in the TED talks, I believe a teacher could find at least one relevant to their context.  Alternatively, teachers (or students) could produce media that is exported to the iPod Touch as alternate learning.  I have successfully done this with tutorial videos and videos as stimulus for a response.

If stimuli is placed on the iPod Touch, I like to have a method for student response to be directly input to the device.  There are a number of applications available to enable this.  Firstly, there is the standard pre-installed “Notes” application.  Students could create a new note and type their response to the stimulus in.  If writing input is preferred, “Writepad” allows this.  Writepad can even convert handwriting to typed text.  Alternatively, voice input can be achieved with Griffin iTalk among others.  You will need to have a microphone to utilise this in the iPod Touch.  If you install the iTalk Sync program on your computer, you can move recordings from the iPod Touch to the computer over a wireless connection.

Sometimes, written or verbal responses don’t encourage the artistic or createive desires in our students.  For this purpose they could build a response in “Flipbook Lite” which is a stick animation program.  Alternatively, students could create a concept map in SimpleMindX.

For general reference and retrieval, I’ve installed “Dictionaire” - a simple dictionary.  I’m unsure of the extent of its database but I am yet to ask it a word it does not have a definition for.  I’ve also installed “TouchCalc” - an enhanced calculator and “GraphCalc” - a graphing calculator.  “MultiConvert” performs conversions in a range of categories, and “The Chemical Touch Lite” provides a range of information for the elements in the periodic table.  The standard pre-installed “Clock” and the enhanced “LabTimer” cater for all my time calculation needs.  “iTrain” contains an extensive database of exercises, including instructional animations - especially useful for us HPE teachers.

A couple of applications, using the concept of flashcards, are great for memory testing.  Where possible, I direct the students to create the flashcards as revision or quizzes for each other. “iFlipr Lite” has a bank of flashcard sets in its online storage - these can be downloaded over a wireless connection.  “gFlash+” uses Google Spreadsheets as an input for its card sets, therefore they can be created by anyone.  Often the creation of the flashcard set is a much greater pedagogical exercise than using the flashcard set.

The two most often used applications for me are “Calendar” and “Evernote”.  I sync Calendar to my Google calendars, which is where I do my planning for class.  It will automatically sync over my wireless when I am at home, however the details are available even when offline.  Evernote will also automatically sync when a wireless connection is available.  I use evernote on the iPod Touch primarily for input, which can be typed, voice or photo.  I am starting to enjoy using evernote in combinatio with SimpleMindX.  Create a mindmap in SimpleMindX, save it to the camera roll, then import into evernote.

Each of these applications allow me to use the iPod Touch in class to enable learning outside of a wireless connection.  The inclusion of this device in my class has certainly increased the engagement of some students who prefer to use it.  I have also downloaded some games that require thinking, and these are permitted to be used outside of class time or in a designated “your learning” time in class.  These games are “Scramble” - a word find game, “BrainTuner Lite” - a braintraining game, and “Tiki Lite” - a problem solving game.

I hope this breif overview of a number of apps provides some insight into their pedagogical application.

I had an interesting experience this week.  Something I have never experienced previously but something which certainly put to the test everything I have ever put out there in regards to digital pedagogy and my practice. I was approached by a school who requested access to and observation of my practice.

So how do I keep myself honest and ensure my practice is sound - open my classroom to them.  The three visiting teachers were invited into my classroom to observe, and encouraged to them to interact with my students.  This allowed them to ask questions about anything I’ve claimed to have done and gain honest reflection from my students.  I previously informed the students what would be occurring, and encouraged them to be honest in their answers - and I have confidence this group of students would be.  The fact that I know not all of my students are enjoying or even participating in the journey of digital pedagogy to the extent that I am, and this honest reflection can only be helpful to others striving to begin their own journey.

This visit has caused me to further reflect on the ways in which I provide information.  Without being egotistical, I’m aware others wish to learn from the journey I am in.  The level of learning differs depending on experience and interest, and some just simply want to know “how to.”  It is my intention to keep this blog as a reflection on digital pedagogy and not a “how to” for the digital tools I use.  To cater for this I am investigating other spaces that could cater for this service.  Once I have these reconciled I will no doubt link to them under the “Other ShaneTechTeach Spaces” links that appear to the upper left of this blog.

So, consolidate your practice and keep your self honest by inviting others to share and comment on your teaching and learning.

Every worker has a toolkit.  In the kit are tried and tested tools they can rely on to enable effective and productive work.  A teacher is no different.  We all have toolkits, and our toolkits are all individualised - different from each other.  The rapid expansion of technology has enabled this richness in teaching toolkits.  I have my particular favourites that I will use consistently, and others that are replaced when something more functional appears.  However for me the key value is its functionality for my teaching and my students learning.

There are so many tools out there, to list a top ten would be only a point in time reflection.  The world has moved beyond lists for the effective management of data.  For me, I need a range of tools that I can search quickly to determine which is most appropriate for the task at hand.  THis is particularly important when providing advice to students on what tools they should use.  I always strive to offer my students options, then encourage them to make a judgement and choice.  My only pre-requisite is that the software must be legally free.  I have always found a free tool, or group of free tools, that could achieve any result desired by any teacher or student.  Sometimes they choose not to use the free tools, but this is their choice.  I feel contented as I have been able to show them the free option exists.

So how do I manage my toolkit.  I used to carry around a 4GB USB stick that stored a range of installation files and portable applications.  However my toolkit has expanded beyond the storage capability of this USB stick.  For a time I went to 2 x 4GB sticks.  But this was inevitably risky, often I would forget one stick or lend one to someone and not retrieve it efficiently.  I have now moved to a portable HDD.  But this has resulted in a cluttered mess of install files, and as we all know a program’s install file may not naturally be named logically similar to the program.  Apparently I am not bright enough to consider renaming files until I decide I urgently need a particular one.

I need to find a tagging process for this. Perhaps Evernote can help me.  I have not looked into Evernote to se if it has this capability but it is pretty useful for most other things so I should be able to find a way for it to manage this also.

Discovery of tools to trial is never difficult.  There are a range of blogs and podcasts I subscribe to that provide never ending lists of tools to trial.  Some reviewers do a great job of exploring pedagogical application of these tools, whereas other times I need to play, think and trial.  As an attempt to make this process easier for others on this journey with digital pedagogy, I have decided to publish a regular, brief podcast describing one tool at a time how I apply each to my context.  If you think this can help you then listen here.  You’ll need to excuse audio quality, I’m still learning.

One way I will use this podcast, is as I research / review each tool I will be able to tag it in whatever management process I deem useful.  This will enable me to search effectively, or at least more effectively than I am currently.  If only I knew about tagging before I started collecting all these tools.

Recent work of a colleague who gets a fair bit of blog love from here has seen me reflecting on the inherent risk associated with the expanding use of digital tools in education.  What is risk when it comes to digital pedagogy?  Is it the risk of using the actual tool, risk of failure in terms that the lesson may not implement as planned, risk of inappropriate use, risk of privacy breach, risk of incurring financial cost, risk of any number of things?  To be honest, before this discussion with @mobbsey my thinking on the risks with digital learning centred on the protection of my students.  Since the discussion, and the subsequent web cruising and reading, I am considering a whole lot more.

Acknowledging risk is one thing, one must also assess it then put in place steps to manage it.  The assessment and management of risk is something @mobbsey has been thinking about considerably, and has shared with me some planning documents she is developing to aid the risk analysis and management process for teachers.  The process is similar to that of HPE teachers when managing physical activity.  It is when I made this link to my curriculum knowledge that my perception of potential risk inherent with digital pedagogy expanded remarkably.

First consideration is copyright.  I have blogged previously about my focus on students learning appropriate use of digital resources and their guided discovery of Creative Commons licensing.  One aspect I promote the onsideration of is the aspect of “Share and Share Alike.”  However as an employee of an educational organisation I don’t officially or legally own my work.  Anything I create for use in my employment by my employing organisation is owned by the organisation.  Does this then limit my ability to share and share alike?  I can certainly share within certain boundaries, for example by direct request and response.  But am I sharing alike if the work is not re-posted to a public domain?  Does this represent risk is the use of licensed work?

Secondly, the consideration of license is huge.  I acknowledge the relative safety we enjoy as educators in Australia where use of material for education within our closed classroom environments can occur without fear of copyright breach.  I fear less informed educators do not realise the potential risk of making public materials they have used in such a fashion.  My understanding is by letter of the law if a copyrighted material is used as a learning resource or in a piece of work produced, this can be freely displayed to students and teachers within the school only.  This does not include shown to parents, visitors to the school or sharing to others outside the school.

Is there risk opening our students awareness of digital tools and theirpotential use.  If I show my students that phones can capture images, then phones can connect to the internet - it is not incredible that they may join the two and realise they can easily post pictures to the internet.  Indeed there are many services out there that make this process too easy.  Does this learning, despite being productive and effective, increase the risk of privacy issues with our students?

As I think along this concept, my mind keps running deeper and deeper and I don’t think there is a simple solution to it at the moment beyond the corporate control that currently exists.  My employing organisation has a filtering service, provides a secure LMS and allocates each teacher a webspace.  This maintains control of the resources (which they rightfully own) and ensures some level of safety.  Essentially, within those boundaries the risk analysis and management is already done for us.

And then there is the idea of real risk versus perceived risk.  Perception of risk in regards to digital tools is heavily dependent on teacher experience and knowledge.  A teacher who has not experienced the troubles a digital tool could bring may not perceive as high a risk.  A teacher pushing the envelope of corporate control in the pursuit of innovation and engagement may not perceive a risk with their planned activities, whereas others in different contexts may.  I guess this is why we are restricted, and that our work is owned by the corporation.

Now I know some of you will react strongly to the idea that we as teachers do not own our work, and that the corporate control could be a good thing.  I have had many debates with teachers about these issues, and I have often lamented the restrictions (perceived and real) of the corporate control.  Yet now, I may see some logic behind it all.

In the end, I think the process @mobbsey is looking for is for teachers to think and communicate before they innovate and implement digital pedagogy.  As a Head of Department, I can totally agree there.  I would expect the same of any of my teachers attempting to innovate with physical movement, why should digital tools be any different?

Further to my recent posts where occurrences and conversations at my school have caused me to reflect and refine my approach to developing staff capabilities in digital pedagogy.

I have spent considerable time this week working on the tools, in preference to the pedagogy.  In particular installing software for IWBs onto teacher laptops and showing teachers how to connect their laptop to projectors and printers.  Not exactly what I had in mind when my administration offered me a position of eLearning support.  However, an amazing thing has happened.  Teachers are talking.  Conversations about pedagogy have emerged around the tools enabled.  So I listen and think “What is more important here, the tool or the pedagogy.”

Its at this point I have one of those “aaahhh” moments.  In my pet subject of Health Education we often discuss the need to enable a population to change health behaviours and outcomes by providing them with the skills, knowledge, support and services.  Why should the development of digital pedagogy be any different?  Having been through this process, how can I enable the development of digital pedagogy?

Skills and knowledge - I need to tap into them, their teaching colleagues and HODs to ensure this is maximised.  The Ways of Working and Core Curriculum Elements will provide a base for discussions about pedagogy as they should be consistent across subject disciplines.

Support and services - getting the tools to work, providing access.  But I think there is more to it than this.  There needs to be an environment where teachers can experiment, and fail.  Although I am looking for an alternative word to fail, as that insinuates they have done something wrong.  But there needs to be support for trial and refinement.

I need to go and plan my enabling approach.  I’m ecstatic that setting up IWB software has sparked conversations about pedagogy.  There have even been decisions about what the IWB would not be useful for.

Further to my last post where I was challenged on my focus and beliefs in regards to the interplay and interdependence of digital pedagogy and digital tools, I have spent some time this last week deliberately focusing on functional use of technology.  I have concentrated on not asking the questions about learning intent, instead listening to teachers openly and then assisting them to work around the hardware or software problems they perceive they have.  Through this I have discovered 2 remarkable things.

Firstly, I can see and hear genuine excitement from teachers when their problems (perceived or real) are solved.  An example occurred with interactive whiteboards that are installed at my school.  We have 3 Teamboards and 3 Starboards at my school.  Since the managed operating environment was installed last year the IWB software has not been activated on the relevant computers.  This has not occurred for a number of reasons.  One board is owned by Maths, and they have seen a number of acting HODs since that time.  Three boards are owned by Academic Excellence, whose HOD believes they are inferior boards to Smartboard and therefore has not bothered with them.  I’ve spent considerable time over the last week working with my techie and the board manufacturers to establish a plan of action that would allow me to install the software on teacher laptops and have the boards usable.

To gain access to the boards, I’ve had to enter the classrooms while classes are running.  Its amazing how this brings interested teachers out of the woodwork.  There is a substantial number now asking questions like “Do you think you can get them to work?” and “How can I get access?”  There is genuine excitement as digital tools are made accessible and available.  Now that I have successfully trialled an install on my laptop, my lunches next week are already booked as teachers queue to have their laptops prepared.

The second amazing occurrence I have witnessed is that teachers are much more willing to talk to me about digital pedagogy if my initial approach is about digital tools.  I believe I have experienced much more conversation and engagement by a focused approach on improving access to technology and listening to their perceptions without judgement (a skill that I should be well and truly aware of as a HOD - I know).  There is also the off-shoot of them wanting to show me what they can do.

All of this is possible due to two reasons.  Firstly my administration, in particular my upline manager, recognise the efforts I am making within the school in this area and have created a position of eLearning support where I am provided time to assist teachers individually.  Secondly, a good relationship with my techies which has seen significant trouble shooting to enable this process.  One of the great achievements is the creation of an “Local Installation Logon” where I can log onto any computer and a list of installation files is stored on the desktop.  I then have permissions to install on that local machine.  This has included scripts for installation programs that require OC (techie) permissions, such as the teamboard software.

This does not change my beliefs in regards to digital pedagogy, I am simply realising there are alternate ways to achieve my goals.  I now need to trial methods of engaging the ‘advanced’ digital pedagogues within my staff and those in the “preparing for Digital Pedagogy License submission.”  This group is where a more structured approach can be useful.  I am refining some planning templates that I have developed, and I hope to trial these on my license group.  Their intent is to provide evidence of thought and planning in regards to the use of digital tools and digital pedagogy.  A “Risk Management Template” by an inspirational colleague has opened the door to further possibilities for me also, thanks to @mobbsey for sharing.

So, a slight shift in my approach reaping results.

A thought provoking conversation today that has me seriously questioning what I have been doing, how I have bene doing it and the message perceived by staff.  This is all in relation to encouraging digital pedagogy within my school and promoting the Smart Classrooms PD framework.

For 5 hours today, all HODs and admininstration at my school collaborated on developing strategic projects based on feedback from staff.  We had identified four main areas to focus on, one of which was pedagogy.  There was a significant amount of feedback from staff that inferred they felt their pedagogy was limited by a lack of access to working technology.  In our small working group we decided to separate those comments as a misinterpretation of pedagogy.  We then developed our key issues from the remaining comments.

When we presented to the rest of the executive administration group, one HOD pointed out that 50% of the comments responding to the question “What barriers do you preceive limit your pedagogy” mentioned ICTs and maintenance of such.  He suggested we were taking liberties with the staff feedback by removing this from focus.  I responded as I would normally do in these circumstances and explain that pedagogy is about more than tools, and should not be dependent on tools.

Well a robust discussion ensued, and continued into and through our coffee break.  However it was one comment from the HOD of the Education Access Centre that shook me, and has me questioning myself.  She made a statement that staff feel they are required to use ICTs if their pedagogy is to be considered satisfactory.  I argued against that again stating pedagogy versus tools argument.  She responded that this was the significant message being sent.

Bang.  There it was.  Of course this is a significant message.  We are told daily that if we do not use the digitla tools that our students are supposedly so comfortable with that we will be left behind.  We have significant promotion of a PD framework that requires use of such digital tools.  So is it any wonder that teachers believe the tools are more important than the pedagogy.  Now I know some who read this will defend the PD framework, but there is no need as I believe in it strongly and base much of my work upon the indicators within.  However I had to agree.  The most significant message, one that I have been contributing to, is that ICT use is linked to required standards of pedagogy, strongly linked.

Now I am still not clear on how I feel about this.  It has certainly rocked me and had me reflecting since the comment was made.  Considering that my school has recently provided time for eLearning support of teachers and the fact that we require all staff to hold at minimum the ICT certificate supports this perception.  All I know is that I have significant impact on this perception.  How do I ensure the correct message is received, and staff do not feel the pressure to conform to a perception of a tool as more important than practice?

Definitely food for thought.