Reflection two

A shift in practice (Small, 2023). 

This reflection is in response to Online Activity 2.0: Revolution/Evolution/Status Quo?

Task

Compose a 400-500 word reflection on the following question: 

Does the adoption of digital technologies imply a modification of your teaching (i.e., evolution), extreme change in your teaching (revolution) or more of what you already do (status quo)?

Artefact

Digital technologies have fundamentally changed the way teaching and learning are done. In particular, the COVID-19 pandemic caused a widespread pressure for learning to be made available online for learners who were now geographically dispersed and with mixed access to technologies and internet connection. As such, a shift in practice was required to effectively integrate a variety of new tools and resources to engage students and facilitate learning. Despite this change in learning medium, there is some overlap between traditional learning and technology enabled learning (TEL) for teacher practice.  

Learning theories which are utilised in a traditional face-to-face learning environment must also be considered with the integration of TEL. Vygotsky’s Social Constructivism, for instance, emphasizes the idea that students should be engaged in the learning process and construct their own knowledge through shared experiences. Here, teachers take on a specific role as ‘mediators’, and much higher importance is placed on peer interaction and engagement. The social aspect occurs frequently even out of the classroom as learners socialize in networked communities with peers, parents, or more knowledgeable others (e.g., blogs, forums, group chats) (Ng, 2015). The teachers’ choice of technology for such learning activities impacts not only teacher and learner access to technology but also their ability to use it (Hickey, 2014). Educators must take the time to consider the affordances of digital technologies so that they can implement it more effectively, as they would when considering what learning activities or assessments to implement. As Hutchby (2001) states, different technologies possess different affordances which can place constraints on the way they can be employed – it is therefore essential for those wishing to implement these tools in their learning strategies to have a good grasp of their affordances.

To conclude, while there is some overlap between more traditional teaching methods and TEL, careful consideration of how technologies are to be accessed and implemented must be made. Namely, I suggest that technology should not be considered sufficient to enhance learning outcomes on its own; rather as part of a learning strategy which takes into consideration access to technologies, digital literacy, affordances, and specific learning goals. The integration of technology in education therefore requires a shift in practice to accommodate for the affordances that they offer, as well as the accessibility of such technologies for learners and teachers.

Reflection

This artefact demonstrates some of the beginnings of my understanding of the interrelationships between technology integration, the content to be taught, and the way in which the content is taught and how the learners learn. There are some strong connections in my thinking here to the TPACK framework, and the integration of technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge, and their intersections (Koehler, Mishra & Cain, 2013). It also links to some ideas from a previous Digital Education paper I had completed with reference to the affordances and constraints of certain digital technologies, and how teachers must understand these in order to effectively implement them in the learning (see Ng, 2015; Hutchby, 2001). 

Reflecting on this activity, I realise it has become particularly important that a shift in practice occurs when integrating digital technologies into the learning curriculum in my organisational context. The roles and responsibilities of educators, particularly in a digitally enhanced environment require that they keep abreast of changes in not only the affordances of new technologies, but also how these interplay with content and pedagogy (Koehler, Mishra & Cain, 2013). Further, it is the responsibility of teachers to look beyond the common, rigid means of integrating technologies and look to reconfigure them for customized pedagogical purposes (Duncker, 1945). Traditionally, education within the military is formal, face-to-face learning with limited technology and pedagogy integration. During the COVID period, it became critical that learning that was typically reserved for face-to-face classrooms could be delivered online to ensure personnel could complete their coursing from geographically dispersed locations. Initially this presented a number of teething issues due to teachers not having knowledge and skills in digital education, and attempting to simply transfer learning to an online environment without considering the technological, pedagogical, or content knowledge interrelationships and how these impact on the learning. Using the TPACK framework I began to more effectively communicate to my colleagues where some of the issues arose in such integrations of digital technologies, and support them in understanding the various affordances of such technologies and their integrations in practice. 

References

Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), 1–110.

Hickey, G. (2014). The Importance of Learning Philosophoes on Technology Selection in Education. Journal of Learning Design, 16-22.

Hutchby, I. (2001). Techologies, Texts and Affordances. Sociology, 441-456.

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13–19.

Ng, W. (2015). New Digital Technology in Education: Conceptualising professional learning for educators. Australia: Springer.

Small, L. (2023). A shift in practice [digital visualization on the internet]. https://www.canva.com/design/DAFdV0Tzo_Y/HY0b00A_8zwLH7CM4n7jFg/edit