Category: EdTech Reflections

Ms. Humphries gave an informative presentation on technology and inclusion in B.C. classrooms, in particular the BC EdAccess society, a volunteer run organization which serves families of children with disabilities. She asserted that ableism – the discrimination and social prejudice against people with disabilities based on the belief that typical abilities are superior still exists in the contemporary classroom.  Citing examples of how technology in infrastructure already allows learner independence (i.e. wheelchair accessibility and ramps, Humphries believes information technology will also allow students to more fully participate and excel in the learning space. She gave two examples, one being the AAC system, which is a way of typing to communicate and the FTI system, which makes sound clearer for students.

It is clear that the first step to accommodating students starts with awareness and communication with students to see if additional help is required. Teachers need to be informed about the IEP and make themselves available to parents to see what resources are available to enhance inclusion for these students. Teachers will need flexibility in all stages of lesson planning, field trips and assessments to allow full participation for all members of a learning community.  I can only imagine how frustrating and painful it may be for parents if their child does not receive the adequate support in the classroom or additional consideration is portrayed as a burden that gets in the way of instruction for ‘typical’ students. Sadly, so many decisions in the school system are dictated by available funding and staffing considerations. Humphries raised the issue of defining the term “disabled” and I am interested in the protocols involved in determining whether a student would benefit from specialized instruction outside of the general classroom. I have witnessed classes where a student was clearly incapable of participating in an upper level history class because of a medical condition and this was often a distraction in the classroom. I fully support an inclusive classroom when merited, but in my example, and I am not an expert whatsoever, it appeared the student was kept in the classroom out of principle rather than benefit to all concerned

Distributed learning refers to non-face-to-face communication between students and teachers.  The pandemic forced people for better or worse to transition away from face-to-face instruction.  One silver lining of this shift is that people ended up engaging with and becoming familiar with technology that they probably would not have voluntarily used if it were not necessary.

Some have argued that online learning is a poor replacement for face-to-face learning and learning tends to be passive whereas others claim the debate surrounding pedagogy vs. modality depends on classroom design. While it is true that whether a learning experience is passive or dynamic depends on the pedagogy applied in that modality, I find that passivity and fatigue set in much faster in a distant online format than a in class format.  Importantly, the question as to who ultimately benefits from distributed learning will influence how we move forward. I believe that this was initially a trojan horse by tech companies claiming that it would lessen the workload on instructors in the hope that they in turn would recruit students to adopt this technology and the utility of this technology for students was serendipitous.

As our class is an example of blended learning, the professor demonstrated how our interactions, content delivery and assessments range on a spectrum of teacher and student control and asynchronous and synchronous learning. The variety provides different avenues for communication.  Could this be the future of public-school learning? Is it necessary for every student to come to brick and mortar facilities everyday when the technology enables to learn remotely? Is the school just a baby-sitting center that allows parents to work full-time? Without a doubt, this technology has allowed for a democratization of learning that will allow rural access to high-quality education.

Last week Trevor MacKenzie gave an informative and very illuminating presentation positing the need for a constructivist approach to learning which argues for student agency and control of learning in the classroom. He emphasized the need for students to be both cognitively and physically active in the learning space. In the Q & A portion of his presentation, he demonstrated constructivism in action by explaining how he co-constructs rubrics and core competencies with students. I found this fascinating because I had viewed things like competencies and rubrics to be areas of concern for the teachers only. Now that I know that when students fully understand what is being assessed and the gap between the teacher’s expectations (be it curriculum or assessment) and students understanding is bridged, it makes sense that student performance will improve and I will definitely try to implement this in my classroom.

I am still a little confused about his explanation of transitioning away from novel studies units to a unit centered around concepts. I understand that this is an attempt to include different underrepresented voices and identities into the canon, but I hope that it would not exclude amazing literature simple for the crime of being old.

MacKenzie also rightly claimed that our learner narrative shapes how we as teachers teach but that not all students learn exactly like the teacher. I never really had considered how the way I learned in the past would influence my teaching practice and how it will inevitably manifests itself in the way I delivered course content and assessment. The thing that I took away from his presentation is how impactful our words and dialogue with students have on a student’s identity and future learning experiences. In the future, I hope that I will remain conscious of that when I speak with students and understand the consequences of these interactions. The unscripted interaction with a former professor of Trevor’s underscored that point. What to the professor was probably a innocuous moment of consideration was interpreted as a profound act of compassion and generosity to the student that positively affected his learning journey.

Jeff Hopkins, founder of the Pacific School of Innovation and Inquiry (PSII), has created a school based on student inquiry. This means that instruction is centered around student need and interest and begins with a thorough needs analysis of the student, ascertaining their interests and crafting a curriculum that best fits the learner. PSII is unique in that it is intentionally interdisciplinary, something that the BC public school curriculum is beginning to encourage with its teachers.  

I was initially concerned at the vagueness of simply encouraging open inquiry and to what extent students would be supported; however, Hopkins makes it clear that structured timetables and support are put in place after designing their inquiry project.  I like that inquiry originates from questions the students have formulated and that these questions are refined as they research deeper into their inquiry which shows the emphasis on process at PSII. Moreover, after students conduct in-depth research they are required to do something with this knowledge. Learning does not stop at knowing about something, but rather doing something with that knowledge whether it be a finished product or greater understanding of a process. This phase is performed in the community with an emphasis on collaboration which is a wonderful real-world preparation for life after instruction.  My only question is could this model be expanded to a large public-school setting.  Would all students at various ages have the motivation, maturity and accountability to learn this way? 

This week’s lecture nicely demonstrated how technology can complement a lesson. We were introduced to three learning models, namely the SAMR Model for Technology integration, which asks how technology can expand the possibilities regarding learning opportunities; the TPACK Model, a heuristic which shows the how content, pedagogical knowledge and technology can be integrated to make learning more engaging, and Constructive Alignment, which expands on this by incorporating the ‘Big Ideas’ of curriculum with Curricular Competencies (skills) and assessment and how we can find opportunities for technological integration in our syllabi. Lastly, we participated in an EdCamp activity, which I had never experienced and, I found it to be a useful exercise as it is democratic, with topics and content being decided upon by the learners themselves.

The theme of this unit ties in nicely with my group EdTech inquiry project regarding cellphone use and policy in the classroom. At the start of this course, I was adamantly opposed to cell phones in the class.  I still advocate a policy of use that centers around teachers justifying the technology and making the determination whether they would enhance learning for a given activity and that a teacher should have a number of pre-planned alternatives so students are not continuously tied in with technology in the room.

I now definitely see how technology, especially in terms of creating visually stimulating materials through graphic curation and organization can increase student engagement. During my Wednesday field trips to a local high school, I have begun to note in parts of a teacher’s lesson where technology would have immediately helped; for example, breaking up the amount stolid text displayed on a whiteboard or PPT, or how an interactive map could replace a 2-D textbook map. Also, it should be encouraged for the creation of multimedia for assessment purposes.  Students are noticeably comfortable and accepting of having choice with regards to demonstrating learning and technology will facilitate this. As such, I have begun asking teachers what their end of unit assessment will look like and whether technology can be implemented to make it more appealing to students.