INITIAL AND FINAL VISIONS OF EXEMPLARY EDUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATOR

PAPIA BAWA

EDCI 564

Initial Vision of an Exemplary Technology

Papia Bawa

EDCI 564

1. a- My primary area of interest is e-learning for higher education. Specifically, I am

interested in designing fully online professional development courses for higher ed faculty.

I am passionately interested in e-learning, because I see it as the most prevalent

educational medium for the future. Today, online education is one of the top industries in the

world, providing support, knowledge and jobs to a large segment of the world's population.

Back in 2011 Allen and Seaman reported that more than 6.1 million students were taking at least

one online course in the year 2010, and that there is a ten percent growth in online course

enrollments. That trend continues today as indicated by several recent reports like Sloan

Consortium’s Babson Study Report, which shows that the number of students taking at least one

online course has now surpassed 6.7 million (Blair, 2013). E-learning is also becoming a fast

growing part of corporate training. Organizations that are e-learning savvy have better chances at

business and financial gains, as it provides a positive impact on workplace motivation. “The

world of online learning has become red hot again. Watch for a lot more to come” (Adams,

2012). As a faculty who has been involved with e-learning since 2004, I have seen the demand

for having more professional development option for educators who wish to adapt to the e-

learning environment, but have several ‘teething’ issues, probably because they belong to the

group of ‘digital immigrants’ who are looking to teach ‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2001) .

1.b- The status of technology and technology integration in my area of interest (e-learning

for higher education) can be described as involving technology that is ‘exciting and immersive’

and technology integration that is ‘rapidly evolving’.

There are multitudes of educational technology available for e-learning that range from

intuitive platforms (like Blackboard, Sakai, WebCT and Desire2Learn) to a variety of web 2.0

tools (like Prezi, Snacktools, multiple Infograohic tools, etc.) , which can be used to create RLOs

(Reusable Learning Objects) for use within the platforms. There are also some great tools for

analyzing e-learning student behavior. Johnson, Smith, Willis, Levine and Haywood (2011)

discuss several analytical technologies and tools that can be adapted for educational purposes,

and two in particular that are useful for e-learning: Socrato “an online learning analytics service

that generates diagnostic and performance reports” and SNAPP (Social Networks Adapting

Pedagogical Practice). The technology integration is also rapidly evolving as more and more

institutions are looking to insert some form of e-learning options in their programs. Currently,

Purdue University is quickly expanding its e-learning offerings and universities like UCLA,

MIT, Yale and Harvard are going a step further towards rapidly increasing the number of

free/almost free open courses. The latest trend of MOOCs is revolutionizing the tech-integration

in education. All these open source courses are made available via e-learning options. The best

thing about them is the fact that for most part, learners are in these courses because they want to

learn about a subject, without the worries of learning simply to receive a degree in a subject. The

learning environment therefore appears to be of a purer, more passionate kind. Mangan (2012)

discusses the benefits and technological formats of MOOCs, as these “worldwide, free, open

courseware provides a window, if not a front-row seat, to top university classes…. Some consist

mainly of lectures recorded on iTunes, while other courses seek to replicate a classroom

experience by offering study groups, computer-graded tests, and weekly assignments” (p.7). To

conclude, both the development of educational technology and integration of those technologies

is rapidly growing and evolving in the e-learning arena. This is an exciting age to live and learn

in, and e-learning is right there, at the cutting edge of the learning process.

2.a- My ideal scenario of technology and its integration in e-learning for higher education

My ideal scenario and why I chose it: My ideal e-learning for higher education would be one

that focuses on designing courses that are more student- centered than teacher- centered. That

means these courses will be designed to provide an ideal learning environment catered to specific

aptitudes and attitudes of students, instead of being based on the teachers’/course designers’

perceptions of what and how students should learn. Integrating technology as a learning tool in

the classroom must involve use of adaptive learning technologies that can help students and

educators gauge and measure student capabilities and needs. The rapid growth of e-learning,

which is so attractive to so many organizations and learners, can also become one of the key

drawbacks of the e-learning environment. In the mad rush to invite more and more learners to

join the cyber world, colleges and organizations are mass producing online courses, without

paying adequate attention to the quality of the course designs and contents. This has several

negative effects, but one amongst these deserves special mention: the low level of retention in

online programs/courses. Literature reviews indicate that student satisfaction related to the

overall course design is a key concern and determinant in student retention. Weber and Farmer

(2012) indicate that students consider satisfaction regarding course delivery as a major cause of

continuing or withdrawing in online classes. A key reason for high attrition rates in online

courses is related to ineffective course designs that are created based on assumptions about the

online learner, which may or may not be true. One such assumption is that if a student is 'tech

savvy' and is familiar with mobile and/or social media technology and gaming, he/she is a

perfect fit for online learning. A key flaw when assessing student compatibilities with technology

is crediting them with more capabilities than they actually possess in relation to the online course

materials. Overestimating the technology readiness of online students is a mistake ( Clark-Ibanez

& Scott 2008).

2. b- Initial Vision of Exemplary Technology: One that can effectively fuse adaptive learning

technologies. Here is a model that shows a visual rendition of this concept using two adaptive

learning technologies: LearnSmart and Knewton.

LearnSmart: http://learnsmart.prod.customer.mcgraw-hill.com/

Offered as an innovative learning solution by McGraw-Hill, LearnSmart is an ideal

technology that emulates Howland’s, Jonassen’s and Marra’s (2012) views that

meaningful technology “can also consist of any reliable technique or method for

engaging learning, such as cognitive learning strategies and critical thinking skills”.

LearnSmart engages students in their own learning successes and builds on their

cognitive learning and critical thinking skills by providing a personalized learning path

that’s based on responses to questions (right or wrong), as well as how confident they feel

about the answers they provide. The program also encourages the retention of the

material by identifying concepts that students are likely to forget, and directing them back

to portions of the e-book to help them solidify concepts. Lastly, students are given scores

as they answer questions. These scores allows them to know where they stand as

compared to the rest of their class, and the country at large.

Knewton: http://www.knewton.com/

LearnSmart

Helps students succeed by providing a personalized learning path that’s based on responses to questions (right or wrong), as well as how

confident they feel about the answers they provide

Knewton

Pinpoints student proficiency measurements, content efficacy

measurements, student engagement optimizations, and concept-level

analytics

Students can

recognize their

own learning

processes

Designers and

Teachers can improve

content, instructional

design, cognitive

science, and

pedagogical approach.

“Knewton provides partners with an infrastructure platform that leverages advanced technology

and data science to improve learning experiences for every single student taking a Knewton-

enhanced course” (Knewton, 2013). The Knewton technology consolidates data science,

statistics, psychometrics, content graphing, machine learning, tagging, and infrastructure in one

place in order to enable personalization at massive scale. This technology perfectly supports the

contention that, “Technologies support meaningful learning when they fulfill a learning need-

when interactions with technologies are learner initiated and learner controlled, and when

interactions with the technologies are conceptually and intellectually engaging” (Howland’s,

Jonassen’s and Marra’s, 2012, p.7).

References

Adams, S. (2012, May 09). Corporate e-learning market gets a jolt as online universities grow.

Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2012/09/15/corporate-e-learning-

market-gets-a-jolt-as-moocs-grow/

Allen, E. I., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: online education in the United States,

Retrieved http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/goingthedistance.pdf

Blair, B. S. (2013, January 08). New study: Over 6.7 million students learning online. Retrieved

from http://sloanconsortium.org/news_press/january2013_new-study-over-67-million-

students-learning-online

Clark-Ibanez , M., & Scott , L. (2008). Learning to teach online. Teaching Sociology, 36(1), 36.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/stable/20058625?seq=3

Howland, J. L., Jonassen , D., & Marra, R. (2012). Meanigful learning with technology. (4th ed.,

pp. 2-7). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., and Haywood, K., (2011).

The 2011 Horizon Report. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/HR2011.pdf

Mangan, K. (2012, May 04). Open education’s wide world of possibilities. The Chronicle of

Higher Education, Retrieved from https://mycourses.purdue.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-

1467627-dt-content-rid-

349075_1/courses/wl_XLSX6201230/wl_XLSX6201230_ImportedContent_2012062411

3831/The Digital Campus Report_2012.pdf

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), Retrieved from

http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/prensky - digital natives, digital immigrants -

part1.pdf

Weber, M. J., & Farmer, T. A. (2012). Online Course offerings: Issues of retention and

professional relationship skill development. J. Tareilo & B. Bizzell (Eds.), NCPEA

Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership Retrieved from

http://cnx.org/content/col11375/latest/

Exemplary Technology Educator Final Vision: Papia Bawa

My Initial Vision of an Exemplary Technology Educator

I did not focus on discussing exemplary educator in my DQ 1, so I am going to give that

information in this discussion before I proceed to answer the questions. I will attempt to tie my

description of an exemplary technology educator with my vision of an exemplary technology

that I had described in DQ, in which I talked about the importance of using adaptive technologies

in the classroom to cater to the specific, individual needs of students. “… courses will be

designed to provide an ideal learning environment catered to specific aptitudes and attitudes of

students, instead of being based on the teachers’/course designers’ perceptions of what and how

students should learn”. Bruening, Scanlon, Hoover, Hodes, Shao, Dhotal, and Zolotov (2002)

studied the attributes and methodologies that make exemplary educators and mentioned that ,” In

addition, it is critically important that America’s future teachers are prepared to meet the needs

of a student population in a rapidly changing and global society” (p,11). Based on the above

discussion, my initial vision of an exemplary technology educator included the following

qualities such an educator must have:

1. Passionate about technology, not only when

using it for the workplace, but also in personal

life.

2. Has complete knowledge of the technology

before integrating it into his or her classroom.

3. Has the ability to transfer the knowledge about

4. Is open to the idea of considering the

benefits of new technology, even if those

benefits are not apparent. What I mean is,

an exemplary technology educator should

have the ability to think of creative ways to

adapt technologies for the classroom and

specific technologies to his or her students.

look beyond the obvious uses of a tool.

5. Has the expertise to foster students’ own

understanding of technology versus

‘telling’ them about it. This requires a

definitive leaning towards constructivist

approach to learning.

What has Changed from my Initial Vision and Why

Interaction with my peers. The class has a rich mix of accomplished cohorts from a wide

variety of professional and academic backgrounds. This variety added to my learning process as

I gained insights into other educational levels besides higher education. Many of my classmate’s

perspectives helped reshape my own. For example, Gina mentioned in her initial vision how an

ideal educator should “encourage students to collaborate and share digital information with each

other to apply and make connections to the world around them” (Georgina Lobdell, Personal

Communication, June 26, 2013). This was not something I had really given a lot of thought to

until I read her post. It occurred to me that the course was actually following this idea. I mean,

the 7 Things Assignment not only focused on document designing, it also required us to think

about new technologies and share that knowledge with our peers. My revised vision now

includes: Ability to foster collaboration amongst students in a digital environment. Ann

mentioned that exemplary technology educators will place emphasis on “more challenge based,

active learning. Educators will mentor and facilitate while challenging learner to become

independent thinker yet socially connected and engaged in integrated learning events”(Ann

Cavallaro, Personal Communication, June 25, 2013). I was intrigued by this and although what

she said matched part of my initial vision, there was a marked difference in that she talked about

independent thinking combined with socially connected learning events. As I progressed into the

semester I realized that independent thinking can indeed become more robust when immersed in

a social setting. Each week the discussions we had made us read, reflect and connect to one

another through the forum dialogues. In the process we learned so much more about technology

than what we could have learned by just completing a few assignments. My revised vision now

includes: Ability to use meaningful technologies to inspire independent, critical thinking in

students and facilitate knowledge exchange through social media. This also ties in with

Howland’s, Jonassen’s and Marra’s (2012) views that meaningful technology consists of any

reliable technique or method that engages learning, and facilitates cognitive learning strategies

and critical thinking skills.

Participating in the course activities. The course provided several opportunities to learn about

technology integration in education, mostly through constructivist approaches. All the

assignments were designed to allow students to explore their own understating of how

technology can be integrated in their unique professional backgrounds. When designing the

Technology Integration project, I ran into several hurdles, but the feedback from Dr. Albion

helped clarify some of the issues, so I used all his recommendations to design the final version. I

was particularly impressed with Dr. Albion’s comment s relating to assessments that must

distinguish between “assessment of learning or assessment for learning? .. are they a further

learning opportunity as much as assessment?” ( Dr. Albion, Personal Communication, July 28,

2013). In the process I added one more item to my vision of an exemplary educator: Ability to

design projects that provide a clear vision of the need for integration and incorporate assessments

that extend the learning opportunity, instead of simply evaluating student skills.

How Does an Exemplary Technology Educator Overcome Barriers?

Ertmer (1999) discusses two kinds of barriers that educators face when integrating technology.

External barriers called ‘first order barriers’ are related to circumstantial issues like not having

computer /Internet access, lack of time to plan the instruction or lack of support from

administrative and technical staff. Internal barriers called ‘second order barriers’ relate to the

educators’ attitudes about technology, their beliefs in teaching methodologies and their general

mistrust of technology. Prensky (2001) also discusses similar barriers when he uses the term

‘digital immigrants’ to identify teachers who have issues with integrating technology in their

curriculum. Tsai and Chai (2012) discuss a ‘third order barrier’ that they identify as a ‘lack of

design thinking’. Basically, they believe that teacher technology barriers can be solved if

‘teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)’ factors can be made

stronger.

Ertmer’s, Ottenbriet-Leftwich’s & York’s (n.d.) study reveals that teacher’s’ beliefs and

personal commitments have a profound impact on their practice. To remove this ‘second order

barrier’ it is essential to create training and professional development strategies that address

these beliefs, so that it may increase teachers’ commitments. One recommendation they make is,

“Asking teachers to share their stories and to reflect on their technology integration experiences

is one potential method for highlighting the possibilities of technology, by positively shaping

their personal beliefs about those benefits” (Ertmer, Ottenbriet-Leftwich & York, n.d, p, 9).

Based on this a final addition to my initial vision is: An exemplary technology educator should

be able to design training that helps other educators circumvent or overcome first, second and

third order barriers.

References

Bruening, T. S., Scanlon, D. C., Hoover, T. S., Hodes, C., Shao, X., Dhital, P., & Zolotov, A.

(2002). Attributes and characteristics of exemplary, leading, and innovative career

and technical education teacher preparation programs. Informally published

manuscript, University of Minnesota, St.Paul, MN, Retrieved from

http://teacherscollegesj.edu/docs/47-AttributesCTETeachers_1226201293048.pdf

Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first and second order barriers to change: Strategies for

technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4),

Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02299597

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbriet-Leftwich, A., & York, C. S. (n.d.). Exemplary technology use:

Teachers' perceptions of critical factors. Informally published manuscript, Purdue

University, West Lafayette, IN, Retrieved from

https://collaborate.education.purdue.edu/edci/ertmer/Docs/Conferences/AECT05_ET

UT_Proc.pdf

Howland, J. L., Jonassen , D., & Marra, R. (2012). Meaningful learning with technology. (4th

ed., pp. 2-7). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Tsai, C. C., & Chai, C. S. (2012). The "third"-order barrier for technology-integration

instruction: Implications for teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational

Technology, 28(6), 1057-1060. Retrieved from

http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet28/tsai-cc.html