Beyond Bits and Atoms – Week 8 – Reading Notes

Eyeo 2014 – Leah Buechley

  • Thinking about Making
    • Humans are natural makers
  • Demographics
    • Predominantly men and white or asian
    • Has nothing changed?
  • Maker’s movement promise not achieved
    • Does not reach a wide demographic
    • Is not affordable to lower income classes
    • Investment is guided towards the same old people.
  • Every child is a maker
    • Telling minorities they should aspire to be rich white men
  • What is showcased on MakeMagazine
    • Leaves tons left unseen
    • Limited in scope (electronics)
    • Why hasn’t the LoRider movement get any funds for a non-profit?
  • Art & Tech should be funded

Eyeo 2014 – Leah Buechley from Eyeo Festival // INSTINT on Vimeo.

Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1992). Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the concrete. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11(1), 3-33.

  • Epistemological pluralism
    • “epistemological pluralism, accepting the validity of multiple ways of knowing and thinking.” (Turkle & Papert, 1992)
  • 3 challenges
    • Feminist scholarship – science is male
      • “Our culture tends to equate soft with feminine and feminine with unscientific and undisciplined.” (Turkle & Papert, 1992)
    • Lab mentality – deep knowing only occurs there
    • Computers as a tool for concrete thinking (and now creativity)
  • Computer transforming culture
    • “computer holds the promise of catalyzing change, not only within computation but in our culture at large.” (Turkle & Papert, 1992)
  • Lisa and Robin
    • had to fake it to adapt the dominant culture of computer teaching
    • wanted to express their way of thinking but were not allowed
    • “they can pass a course or pass a test. They are not computer phobic, they don’t need to stay away because of fear or panic. But they are computer reticent. They want to stay away, because the computer has come to symbolize an alien way of thinking.” (Turkle & Papert, 1992)
  • Soft vs Hard programming styles
    • Conceptual vs Logical
    • Male vs Female
  • Bricolage – Levi-Strauss
    • “Bricoleurs construct theories by arranging and rearranging, by negotiating and renegotiating with a set of well-known materials.” (Turkle & Papert, 1992)

Curriculum Construction – Week 8 – Reading Notes

Eisner, E. (April 2002). The Kind of Schools We Need. Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 576-583.

  • Education is not a science (more of an art) and assessments can’t be void of judgment
    • “Artistry and professional judgment will, in my opinion, always be required to teach well, to make intelligent education policy, to establish personal relationships with our students, and to appraise their growth.” (Eisner, 2002, p577)
    • “Although good teaching uses routines, it is seldom routine. Good teaching depends on sensibility and imagination. It courts surprise. It profits from caring. In short, good teaching is an artistic affair.” (Eisner, 2002, p578)
  • Kinds of school’s desired and concerns about the desires
    • Time for teachers to build a community of practice
      • Teachers need a paradigm shift – they haven’t seen what is expected of them – not taught that way to begin with.
    • Teaching as a professionally public process – share what they do behind closed doors
      • Primary ignorance – what you know you don’t know
      • Secondary ignorance – what you don’t know you don’t know – need guidance and discourse
    • School Principals in the classroom
      • Time and scale constraints
    • Look at teaching exemplar examples on video, discuss, and reflect
      • Time and expert facilitation constraints
    • Questions students ask are more important than answers they give
    • Differentiation for more variance rather than reducing gaps
      • “The idea that getting everyone to the same place is a virtue really represents a limitation on our aspirations.” (Eisner, 2002, p580)
      • “The British philosopher and humanist Sir Herbert Read once said that there were two principles to guide education. One was to help children become who they are not; the other was to help children become who they are.” (Eisner, 2002, p580)
    • Develop child’s personal signature
      • “Of course, their ways of seeing things need to be enhanced and enriched, and the task of teaching is, in part, to transmit the culture while simultaneously cultivating those forms of seeing, thinking, and feeling that make it possible for personal idiosyncrasies to be developed.” (Eisner, 2002, p581)
    • Literacy with a broader definition / application
      • “I want to recast the meaning of literacy so that it refers to the process of encoding or decoding meaning in whatever forms are used in the culture to express or convey meaning.” (Eisner, 2002, p581)
    • Learning that transfers to outside of school skills
      • “The point of learning anything in school is not primarily to enable one to do well in school – although most parents and students believe this to be the case – it is to enable one to do well in life. ” (Eisner, 2002, p581)
    • The joy is in the journey
      • “It is the quality of the chase that matters most.” (Eisner, 2002, p582)
      • “Alfred North Whitehead once commented that most people believe that a scientist inquires in order to know. Just the opposite is true, he said. Scientists know in order to inquire.” (Eisner, 2002, p582)
      • “There is a huge difference between what a child can do and what a child will do.” (Eisner, 2002, p582)
      • “It is the aesthetic that represents the highest forms of intellectual achievement, and it is the aesthetic that provides the natural high and contributes the energy we need to want to pursue an activity again and again and again.” (Eisner, 2002, p582)
    • Encourage deep conversations in the classrooms – they are lacking in schools and in personal life
      • “… that is why we often tune in to Oprah Winfrey, Larry King, and other talk show hosts to participate vicariously in conversation. Even when the conversations are not all that deep, they remain interesting.” (Eisner, 2002, p582)
    • Responsibility for own learning
      • “Helping students learn how to formulate their own goals is a way to enable them to secure their freedom.” (Eisner, 2002, p582)
      • Teachers should also be responsible for what is taught – contextual content
      • “… in discourse about school reform and the relation of goals and standards to curriculum reform the teacher is given the freedom to formulate means but not to decide upon ends.” (Eisner, 2002, p582)
    • Public education should educate people outside of school as well
      • “And so I invite you to begin that conversation in your school. so that out of the collective wisdom of each of our communities can come a vision of education that our children deserve and, through that vision, the creation of the kind of schools that our children need.” (Eisner, 2002, p583)

Pope, D. (2001). Doing School: How We Are Creating a Generation of Stressed out, Materialistic, and Miseducated Students. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 1-28, 149-175.

  • Points of view
    • Administrators show off their students.
    • Students are overwhelmed – they are “doing” school
  • Cases
    • Kevin – the people pleaser
    • Teresa – hard worker
  • Must listen to students’ needs, frustrations, and desires

Teacher PD – Week 8 – Class Notes

Groups of 4 discussed the readings. My group discussed Heller:

Heller: Differential Effects of Three Professional Development Models on Teacher Knowledge and Student Achievement in Elementary Science

  • Conceptual Framework
    • 3 Phase of Research PD
    • Quantitative and Qualitative Research mix
    • Same content but differing methodologies
  • PD Interventions/Conditions
    • Conditions
      • Teaching Cases
        • Dilemmas of practice
        • Focuses on student body diversity
        • Looked at other teacher’s cases
        • Cases were used as models – good for scalability
      • Looking at Student Work
        • Only intervention teachers were implementing the work in the classroom
        • Assessments became more informative about student knowledge and misconceptions
      • Metacognitive Analysis
      • Control Groups
    • All had PCK embedded
  • Research Questions
    • What effects do the teacher courses have on teacher science content test scores?
    • What effects do the teacher courses have on teacher written justifications?
    • What effects do the teacher courses have on student science content test scores?
    • What effects do the teacher courses have on student written justifications?
    • What effects do the teacher courses have on English language learner science content test scores?
    • What effects do the teacher courses have on English language learner written justifications?
  • Research Methods
    • (no time to complete)
  • Results
    • (no time to complete)
  • Why it matters
    • Better improvement for ELLs
    • (no time to complete)

Joan I. Heller, the author, came in to reply to our questions! Here were ours:

  • Only the “Looking at Student Work” group were teaching the content at the same time as the PD was being delivered – could this have affected/biased the results!?
    • Implicitly they are looking at their own practice
  • Control group with just the same content?

Then did a very informative PD simulation – lighting a lite bulb – by WestEd

IMG_2088.JPG

IMG_2094IMG_2096IMG_2095

Teacher PD – Week 8 – Reading Notes

Heller, J.I., Daehler, K.R., Wong, N., Shinohara, M., & Maritrix, L.W. (2012). Differential effects of three professional development models on teacher knowledge and student achievement in elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49 (3): 333-362.

  • Study’s sample
    • 6 states
    • 270 elementary teachers
    • 7000 students
    • Same science content components
  • Teacher intervention types:
    • Teaching Cases
      • Design Goals
        • Examine students’ science ideas as they pertained to key concepts in electric circuits,   critically analyze trade-offs among instructional options,
        • See content as central and intertwined with pedagogy
        • Focus on the specific content and curricula being taught.
      • PD Activities
        • Analyzing the student work presented in a case in terms of correct and incorrect ideas
        • Identifying the logic behind common incorrect science ideas
        • Analyzing the teacher’s instructional choices
        • Weighing the tradeoffs of instructional choices in terms of the benefits and limitations of a model, metaphor, definition, or representation used by the teacher in the case
        • Considering the implications for teaching their own students
        • Reflecting on the process of using cases as a tool for learning.
    • Looking at Student Work
      • Design Goals
        • Examine students’ science ideas as they pertained to key concepts in electric circuits,
        • Recognize evidence of incorrect mental models, correct understandings, and proficiency,
        • Analyze tasks to identify characteristics that support formative assessment, and make instructional choices grounded in evidence of student thinking.
      • PD Activities
        • Identified science concepts that were central to a student task
        • Completed the task and analyzed its cognitive demands
        • Identified assessment criteria or constructed an assessment rubric for the task
        • Analyzed the student work in terms of correct and incorrect ideas, as well as common mental models
        • Considered the implications for teaching and learning
        • Described the merits and limitations of the task
        • Reflected on the process of looking at student work.
    • Metacognitive Analysis
      • Design Goals
        • Identify concepts that teachers found challenging to learn related to electric circuits,
        • Examine the logic behind common incorrect ideas pertaining to the topic,
        • Reflect on their own and others’ processes for learning science
        • Analyze the roles of hands-on investigations, discourse, and inquiry in science learning.
      • PD Activities
        • Science ideas they learned during the science investigation
        • Concepts that were particularly tricky or surprising
        • The logic behind an incorrect science idea that they had
        • The implications for what students should learn and how the science content should be taught.
    • + “business as usual” control group
      • Regular PD sessions
  • All 3 showed significant improvement in learning outcomes
    • But better focus on student’s ways of learning rather than teacher’s
      • “Findings suggest investing in professional development that integrates content learning with analysis of student learning and teaching rather than advanced content or teacher metacognition alone.” (Heller, Daehler, Wong, Shinohara, & Maritrix, 2012, p1)
  • Research Questions & Results
    • 1. What effects do the teacher courses have on teacher science content test scores?
      • All 3 methods showed content test score gains, little difference amongst them
    • 2. What effects do the teacher courses have on teacher written justifications?
      • All 3 methods showed content test score gains, little difference amongst them
    • 3. What effects do the teacher courses have on student science content test scores?
      • All 3 methods showed content test score gains, little difference amongst them
    • 4. What effects do the teacher courses have on student written justifications?
      • Only “Looking at Student Work” course significantly improved scores
      • “Teaching Cases” showed some results in the second year
      • “Metacognitive Analysis” did not show improvements compared to control group
    • 5. What effects do the teacher courses have on English language learner science content test scores?
      • All 3 methods showed content test score gains, little difference amongst them
    • 6. What effects do the teacher courses have on English language learner written justifications?
      • No improvements
  • Requirement
    • Only the “Looking at Student Work” group were teaching the content at the same time as the PD was being delivered – could this have affected/biased the results!?
  • Conclusion
    • PD was delivered not only by the developers, but by trained facilitators
      • “The positive outcomes indicate that the train-the-trainers model has the potential for broad dissemination and impact at a relatively low cost. While there is a considerable body of research on professional development for teachers, there is almost no research on preparation of facilitators of professional development.” (Heller, Daehler, Wong, Shinohara, & Maritrix, 2012, p25)

Penuel, W. R., Gallagher, L. P., & Moorthy, S. (2011). Preparing teachers to design sequences of instruction in earth science: A comparison of three professional development programs. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 996-1025.

  • Study to evaluate “whether and how professional development can help teachers design sequences of instruction that lead to improved science learning.” (Penuel, Gallagher, & Moorthy, 2011, p996)
  • Measured across 2 dimensions:
    • The extent to which the programs guided teachers’ selection of curriculum materials
    • Whether or not teachers received explicit instruction in models of teaching associated with particular methods for designing instruction.
  • Results
    • Positive student learning outcomes where “teachers received explicit instruction in models of teaching” (Penuel, Gallagher, & Moorthy, 2011, p996)
    • “we hypothesized that for teachers to use instructional materials well in the classroom, they must receive explicit instruction in the models of teaching that underlay those materials.” (Penuel, Gallagher, & Moorthy, 2011, p999)
  • “Professional development should aim to guide teachers’ design of instruction and uses of curriculum materials (M. W. Brown & Edelson, 2003; Davis & Varma, 2008)” (Penuel, Gallagher, & Moorthy, 2011, p997)
    • “emphasis in recent years has been placed on preparing teachers to follow, rather than create or adapt, curriculum materials and programs (Institute of Education Sciences, 2009)”  (Penuel, Gallagher, & Moorthy, 2011, p997)
    • Assumptions by policy makers et al. that teachers do not possess significant PCK, therefore want teachers simply follow curricula designed be ‘experts’
    • “Teachers inevitably do adapt curricula and programs to fit their classroom contexts (Squire, MaKinster, Barnett, Luehmann, & Barab, 2003)” (Penuel, Gallagher, & Moorthy, 2011, p997)

Screen Shot 2016-02-21 at 9.51.34 AM.png

  • Research questions
    • Do students learn more Earth systems science when professional development guides them to select curriculum materials that are focused on learning goals when designing units of instruction?
    • Do students learn more Earth systems science when professional development for their teachers provides them with explicit instruction in models of teaching?
    • To what extent does variation in teachers’ enactment of models of teaching, whether these models are taught explicitly or not to teachers, account for differences in student learning?
  • Roots of the problem – curriculum lacking the How
    • “past two decades have been focused on the development of curriculum materials aligned to standards (National Research Council, 2006).” (Penuel, Gallagher, & Moorthy, 2011, p998)
    • “few provide sufficient opportunities for students to investigate phenomena directly in a way that gives students an experience of doing science (Kesidou & Roseman, 2002)” (Penuel, Gallagher, & Moorthy, 2011, p998)
  • Teachers will adapt – so design for that
    • “importance of anticipating teachers’ uses of curriculum in planning professional development.” (Penuel, Gallagher, & Moorthy, 2011, p999)
    • “organize professional development for productive adaptations.” (Penuel, Gallagher, & Moorthy, 2011, p1000)
  • Teach the teaching models prescribed within the curriculum
    • “provide teachers with explicit guidance or instruction in the models of teaching specified within materials” (Penuel, Gallagher, & Moorthy, 2011, p1000)
    • not enough to put a side note within the written material – must model, enact it, and engage with it
  • Understanding by Design
    • “UbD is a framework for designing curricular units of instruction that centers on the big ideas, essential questions, and authentic performances (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998).” (Penuel, Gallagher, & Moorthy, 2011, p1002)
    • Similar methodologies
      • Project-based learning (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006; Krajcik & Czerniak, 2007; Krajcik et al., 2008)
      • 5E (Engage–Explore–Explain–Elaborate– Evaluate) instructional model (Bybee, 1997, 2004; Bybee et al., 2006)
  • Study Methodology
    • 3 PD interventions + control group (no PD intervention)
    • Dimensions of differentiation
      • Teachers received professional development in which they were guided to select materials focused on learning goals and that incorporated inquiry-oriented pedagogy
      • Teachers received professional development that provided them with explicit instruction in models of teaching.
    • Conditions
      • 1) Earth Sciences by Design
        • Prepares teachers to apply the principles of UbD
        • No guidance on choice of materials
      • 2) Investigating Earth Sciences
        • No explicit instruction in the models of teaching
        • Do not use external materials, only the ones in the website
      • 3) Hybrid
        • Explicit instructions in the models of teaching & Practice in the design of curricula
        • Content should be at least 50% from the website – guidance provided in selecting external material
      • 4) Control
        • Simply given the curriculum – did not participate in any PD, even though they could
  • Findings
    • “what is particularly important is that teachers develop the capacity to design sequences of instruction by learning a set of pedagogical principles that can guide their selection or adaptation of materials.” (Penuel, Gallagher, & Moorthy, 2011, p1020)
    • “policy considers neither teachers nor curricula in and of themselves as agents of change.” (Penuel, Gallagher, & Moorthy, 2011, p1021)

Carlson, J. & Gess-Newsome, J. (April 2014). PCK in biology teachers resulting from professional development and educative curriculum materials. Paper presented at 2014 AERA Annual International Conference, Philadelphia, PA.

  • PCK Indicators
    • Describe the big ideas in a given content area and the relationship among those ideas.
    • Articulate what they intend students to learn about those ideas.
    • Understand why it is important for students to understand these ideas.
    • Recognize the prerequisite knowledge that they as teachers must have to teach a concept.
    • Understand the difficulties associated with teaching a particular concept.
    • Draw upon a repertoire of ways to ascertain students’ understanding or confusion.
    • Use knowledge about students’ thinking and context to influence instructional decisions.
    • Present multiple representations for the teaching of a concept.
    • Provide a rationale for the selection of teaching strategies and procedures.
  • Educative Curriculum Materials
    • Analyzing Instructional Materials (AIM) for Selection
  • Key characteristics of transformative PD
    • Create a high level of cognitive dissonance to disturb the equilibrium between teachers’ existing beliefs and practices and their experience with subject matter, students’ learning, and teaching;
    • Provide time, contexts, and support for teachers to think and revise their thinking;
    • Connect professional development experiences to teachers’ students and contexts; Provide a way for teachers to develop practices that are consistent with their new understandings
    • Provide continuing help in the cycle of issue identification, new understanding, changing practice, and recycling.
  • Hypothesis
    • Increase teacher’s academic knowledge
    • Improve their PCK
    • Change their practice to be more inquiry-oriented.
  • Challenges for the teachers in changing practice
    • Students though, are not used to ‘thinking about how they think, think about what they know’
    • Time
    • Availability of lab materials
    • Personal beliefs on what is important to teach and what students could learn
    • Conflict in the goals of instruction (own or district’s)
  • Conclusion
    • It worked – using PD to discuss how to implement a curriculum worked.
    • Expensive – time, money, and expertise required
    • Teachers lacked depth and breadth of teaching strategies, or what is effective teaching
    • Feel unsure or do not know what do once they uncovered students’ thinking
    • Few teachers had a conceptual grasp of Biology as a whole, only silos of content

LDT Seminar – Week 7 – Class Notes

Did a group checkin with everyone in the class – administrative questions basically and some more about the LDT Expo happening on July 29 – open to ALL!!

I also prepared my Online Teacher Experience Qualtrics Survey – now waiting for feedback from the cohort.

Then we had the pleasure of having Ashley Moulton come and talk to us about her work at YouTube Kids as a User Experience Design Researchers – most of her slide are confidential but she was able to share some here. I also took a photo of an important one, which reads:

Some related Stanford classes:

  • HCI Seminar
  • d.media
  • Qualitative Research
  • Quantitative Research
  • Needfinding
  • Survey Design
  • Any d.school class
  • Any behavior design class (B.J. Fogg or d.school class about habit change)
  • LDT Master’s Project

IMG_2035.JPG

LDT Seminar – Week 7 – Next steps & Appendices: Time, Money, People Assignemnt

Prompt

Appendices are for anything else you think you need to share with your reader, in case they’re interested. I am asking you for a draft timeline, budget, and a list of collaborators and supporters. Plan on ~300 hours for the project. Note that a budget is required before I can release project funds.

If you’d like you can add other information such as an annotated list of competing products or copies of surveys and interview questions.

Do not assume appendices will be read; these are reference materials that provide the opportunity for the reader to go deeper should she or he so desire. Summarize the message or insights gleaned from these materials in the text of your proposal. They should inform your “next steps.”

Response

 Supporters

  1. Candace Marie-Thille – online teaching platform pedagogy
  2. XXX – Udemy platform expert
  3. Pedro Cunha – graphic design
  4. Eduardo Cremon – software architecture
  5. Karin Forsell & Paulo Blikstein – feedback & support

(need to expand this list) 

Timeline

Num

Month

Friday

Item

2

February

19

Define survey questions and send them out

2

February

26

Define problem and target audience

3

March

4

Define problem and target audience

3

March

11

Collect Reasearch

3

March

18

Hot to measure success

3

March

25

4

April

1

Feature list

4

April

8

Feature list

4

April

15

Wireframes

4

April

22

Define technologies

4

April

29

Database

5

May

6

APIs

5

May

13

User Interface

5

May

20

User Interface

5

May

27

User Interface

6

June

3

Final Adjustments

6

June

10

6

June

17

6

June

24

User Testing

7

July

1

User Testing

7

July

8

Analyze User Testing Data & Feedback

7

July

15

Final Adjustments

7

July

22

Final Adjustments

7

July

29

V1 LDT Expo

Appendix

Keywords 

  • Hybrid Online Learning
  • Instructional Design
  • Train the Trainer
  • Professional Development
  • TPCK & TPACK

Research / Citations

“While students rated the instructors very positively, the results also indicate that instructors still need to have their roles transformed pedagogically, socially, and technologically if they are to establish a more engaging and fruitful environment for online learning.” – Liu, X., Lee, S., Bonk, C., Su, B., Magjuka, R. (2005). Exploring Four Dimensions of Online Instructor Roles: A Program Level Case Study. Online Learning Consortium http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/sites/default/files/v9n4_liu_1.pdf

“This study found a change in the beliefs and teaching presence of the instructors from their initial resistance to online teaching to an approach which is mindful of the student experience and promotes a dialogical approach to online learning.” – Redmond, P., (2011) From face-to-face teaching to online teaching: Pedagogical transitions. ascilite 2011 Hobart: http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/hobart11/downloads/papers/Redmond-full.pdf

“In spite of the proliferation of online learning, creating online courses can still evoke a good deal of frustration, negativity, and wariness in those who need to create them.” – Vai, M. & Sosulski, K. (2015). Essentials of Online Course Design. A Standards-Based Guide, 2nd Edition. Routledge https://www.routledge.com/products/9781138780163

“Technology alone does nothing to enhance online pedagogy. According to Jacobsen, et al. (2002), the real challenge is to “develop fluency with teaching and learning with technology, not just with technology, itself” (p.44).” – Keengwe, J. & Kidd, T. (2010). Towards Best Practices in Online Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no2/keengwe_0610.htm

TO REVIEW

Essentials of Online Course Design https://www.routledge.com/products/9781138780163

Towards Best Practices in Online Learning and Teaching in Higher Education http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no2/keengwe_0610.htm

EXPLORING FOUR DIMENSIONS OF ONLINE INSTRUCTOR ROLES: A PROGRAM LEVEL CASE STUDY https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwjQ4te54tfIAhUL1GMKHcGSCxA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonlinelearningconsortium.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fv9n4_liu_1.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHtnYf76HkFI-YrIcLhxBWoNPXhRw&sig2=RQVCKYoBJvqv-Gtu8oyCdw

(MY) THREE PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE ONLINE PEDAGOGY http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ909855.pdf

Source Effects in Online Education http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/thies/las15-source-effects.pdf

The Five stage Model http://www.gillysalmon.com/five-stage-model.html

From face-to-face teaching to online teaching: Pedagogical transitions http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/hobart11/downloads/papers/Redmond-full.pdf

From On-Ground to Online: Moving Senior Faculty to the Distance Learning Classroom http://er.educause.edu/articles/2017/6/from-onground-to-online-moving-senior-faculty-to-the-distance-learning-classroom

Why some distance education programs fail while others succeed in a global environment http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096751609000281

Case Study: Challenges and Issues in Teaching Fully Online Mechanical Engineering Courses http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-06764-3_74

TPCK and SAMR – Models for Enhancing Technology Integration (2008) http://www.msad54.org/sahs/TechInteg/mlti/SAMR.pdf

SAMR and TPCK in Action http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2017/08/28/SAMR_TPCK_In_Action.pdf

SAMR: Beyond the Basics http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2017/08/26/SAMRBeyondTheBasics.pdf

From the Classroom to the Keyboard: How Seven Teachers Created Their Online Teacher Identities http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/download/1814/3253

A structure equation model among factors of teachers’ technology integration practice and their TPCK http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131515000949

Examining Technopedagogical Knowledge Competencies of Teachers in Terms of Some Variables http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815006990/pdf?md5=1d1ccf6d1fb7088d7fda105f66d677c6&pid=1-s2.0-S1877042815006990-main.pdf

The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge-practical (TPACK-Practical) model: Examination of its validity in the Turkish culture via structural equation modeling http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131515001189

Using TPCK as a scaffold to self-assess the novice online teaching experience http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01587919.2015.1019964#aHR0cDovL3d3dy50YW5kZm9ubGluZS5jb20vZG9pL3BkZi8xMC4xMDgwLzAxNTg3OTE5LjIwMTUuMTAxOTk2NEBAQDA=

What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge? http://www.editlib.org/p/29544/

The role of TPACK in physics classroom: case studies of preservice physics teachers http://ac.els-cdn.com/S187704281201779X/1-s2.0-S187704281201779X-main.pdf?_tid=cf1faf84-81bf-11e5-8938-00000aacb35f&acdnat=1446509831_08753d5dcf76ed3f790bd4382aae1e31

Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lEbJAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=tPCK&ots=-p0TWk4RCI&sig=FElDYqBq7xyKcFWehvVRZ91LrNE#v=onepage&q&f=false

When using technology isn׳t enough: A comparison of high school civics teachers׳ TPCK in one-to-one laptop environments http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885985X14000229

Systematic Planning for ICT Integration in Topic Learning http://ifets.info/journals/10_1/14.pdf

What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge? http://www.citejournal.org/articles/v9i1general1.pdf

Teacher Education Programs and Online Learning Tools: Innovations in Teacher http://www.igi-global.com/gateway/book/63882

A Blended-learning Pedagogical Model for Teaching and Learning EFL Successfully Through an Online Interactive Multimedia Environment https://journals.equinoxpub.com/index.php/CALICO/article/view/23157/19162

Learning Robotics Online: Teaching a blended robotics course for secondary school students http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10092/10281/thesis_fulltext.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Blended-format professional development and the emergence of communities of practice http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/906/art%253A10.1007%252Fs13394-012-0065-0.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle%2F10.1007%2Fs13394-012-0065-0&token2=exp=1453102375~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F906%2Fart%25253A10.1007%25252Fs13394-012-0065-0.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Farticle%252F10.1007%252Fs13394-012-0065-0*~hmac=6d5ccbd94902a88c2a80ff84fab3e4cbdfb3decb34fd54015f9d068638625b02

Blended-format professional development and the emergence of communities of practice http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/24691/pdf_1

Integrating Online and Face-to-Face Professional Development: A Social Networking Approach http://concord.org/sites/default/files/pdf/itsisu-narst-2013.pdf

Comparing the Impact of Online and Face-to-Face Professional Development in the Context of Curriculum Implementation http://jte.sagepub.com/content/64/5/426.full.pdf+html

Online Interactive Module for Teaching a Computer Programming Course http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/19628/3/OthmanOnlineFrance_ECEL2013.pdf

The Effectiveness of Online and Blended Learning: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature https://www.sri.com/sites/default/files/publications/effectiveness_of_online_and_blended_learning.pdf

How to Do More with Less: Lessons from Online Learning http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ982835.pdf

Dive into Content Areas: Instructional Review and Redesign of a Blended Technology Integration Course for PK-6 Pre-service Teachers http://www.editlib.org/d/150452

1:1 online tuition: a review of the literature froma pedagogical perspective http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00441.x/epdf

A Blended Professional Development Program to Help a Teacher Learn to Provide One-to-One Scaffolding http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10972-015-9419-2

Build It But Will They Teach?: Strategies for Increasing Faculty Participation & Retention in Online & Blended Education http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer172/betts_heaston172.html

Several – student’s perspectives http://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET

The design and development of an e-guide for a blended mode of delivery in a teacher preparation module http://reference.sabinet.co.za/webx/access/electronic_journals/progress/progress_v36_n2_a6.pdf

RESEARCH PAPERS OR BOOK ONLY

Effect of a TPCK-SRL Model on Teachers’ Pedagogical Beliefs, Self-Efficacy, and Technology-Based Lesson Design http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4899-8080-9_5

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge as a Framework for Integrating Educational Technology in the Teaching of Computer Science http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4899-8080-9_11

Instruction: A Models Approach, Enhanced Pearson http://www.pearsonhighered.com/educator/product/Instruction-A-Models-Approach-Enhanced-Pearson-eText-with-LooseLeaf-Version-Access-Card-Package/9780134046884.page

Lessons from the virtual classroom : the realities of online teaching [2013] https://searchworks.stanford.edu/?q=836557457

Essentials for Blended Learning: A Standards-Based Guide http://www.lybrary.com/essentials-for-blended-learning-a-standardsbased-guide-p-412451.html

Design and development process for blended learning courses http://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1504/IJIL.2013.052900

OTHER RESOURCES

http://www.sciencedirect.com/

Beyond Bits and Atoms – Week 7 – Class Notes

Based on our reading, class was split into the ‘minimal instruction’ group and the ‘constructionism’ group. We had to come up with a Lesson Plan for teaching fractions to 5th graders… interesting exercise but dichotomy between the two stances were not as clear.

We also did not have the student’s presentations about the readings which made the lesson less engaging.

IMG_2030

Second half of class we heard Michelle Wilkerson from Northwestern University talk about here educational simulation softwares – DataSketch very interesting and powerful tools – but as Papert would say – you still need a skilled teacher to be able to engage and scaffold students in the process as well as debrief with meaningful discussions and displays of learning.

IMG_2031

During the lab session we showed our redesigns:

Link to the paper, presentation and photos of prototype below:

IMG_2032IMG_2033

Finally we looked more at ReactiVision and Processing – how to track fiducial markers.

IMG_2034

Beyond Bits and Atoms – Week 7 – Reading Notes

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist,41(2), 75-86.

  • We need guidance to learn – unsupervised learning = cognitive overload
    • “Although unguided or minimally guided instructional approaches are very popular and intuitively appealing, the point is made that these approaches ignore both the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture and evidence from empirical studies over the past half-century that consistently indicate that minimally guided instruction is less effective and less efficient than instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student learning process. The advantage of guidance begins to recede only when learners have sufficiently high prior knowledge to provide “internal” guidance. Recent developments in instructional research and instructional design models that support guidance during instruction are briefly described.” (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006)
    • “Even for students with considerable prior knowledge, strong guidance while learning is most often found to be equally effective as unguided approaches.”(Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006) 

Papert, S. (1987). Computer criticism vs. technocentric thinking. Educational researcher,16(1), 22-30.

  • Technocentrism – the belief that technology alone will educate.
    • “Do Not Ask What Logo Can Do To People, But What People Can Do With Logo”. (Papert, 1987)
    • “The challenge to school, in its traditional forms, cannot be made by simply dumping computers and computer languages, however well designed, into classrooms.” (Papert, 1987)
  • ExperLOGO – too fast, not geared for learners
    • “At the core of the process of design is the art of trade-off. If you want more speed, you have to take less of something else. Observing what a design team finds worth giving up is a window into its aesthetics and its intellectual values.” (Papert, 1987)

Pea, R. D. (1983). Logo Programming and Problem Solving.[Technical Report No. 12.].

  • Logo is cool but needs to be implemented carefully
    • “The pedagogical fantasy (e.g., Byte, August 1982; Papert, 1980)–that Logo can serve as a stand-alone center in classrooms for learning programming and thinking skills does not work. Teacher training will be necessary for programming skills to develop very far, and problem-solving skills may need to be taught directly rather than assumed to emerge spontaneously from learning Logo.” (Pea, 1983)
  • Did not show increase in planning skills (planning skills = wrong measure!?)
    • “After a year’s experience of programming in Logo, following the discovery-learning pedagogy advocated for Logo, two classes of 25 children (8- to 9-year-olds, 11- to 12-year-olds), each with six computers, did not display greater planning skills than a matched group who did not do Logo programming.” (Pea, 1983)
  • Children had a hard time explaining lines of code they copy/pasted – little transfer
    • “A second was the fact that some children did not understand conditional test statements in these programs even though they had written programs that contained them. This is a robust finding, as other studies with these children have shown; the children’s programs often displayed production without comprehension, in that programming constructs such as variables, test statements, or even simple commands like “repeat” may have been used in one program, but not understood in another.” (Pea, 1983)
  • Was the research wrong or the learning objectives wrong?
    • “But we have deep doubts, based on a series of empirical studies over an 18-month period, that the Logo ideal is attainable with its discovery-learning pedagogy.” (Pea, 1983)