Ordinary experience versus "an" experience; A Deweyan Perspective

Dewey explains that, to have an educative experience, a student must have an anticipatory feeling and be able to immerse themselves in that learning environment. Students that attend class may experience new concepts or ideas through lecture or activity and while they are a part of that body of learning, they aren't necessarily having "an" experience. One can participate in the classroom environment, but if the lesson doesn't allow a real opportunity to begin, develop, and have a meaningful conclusion, the learning aspect is not integrative in a real way that can be used for retention and further development. 

Think about it in terms of learning a skill versus having a skillset. When a coach has a group of 5th graders trying out for the basketball team, would it make sense if the athletes were only taught and practiced passing the basketball? No, of course not. Passing is one aspect of the game! The team needs to also learn how to shoot, rebound, dribble, and play defense. If the only skill the coach focuses on is passing, the game would never make sense to players (or fans!). It's in the learning of the entire repertoire of skills that make up the game of basketball, and when those goals are clear, the game makes sense to the player. 

A basketball player cannot watch the coach shoot and dribble and learn how to play. Likewise, a player cannot understand the mechanics of a bounce pass or a bank shot perfectly and thus be able to preform the skill. They instead need to learn how their body moves across a court in conjunction with their teammates and opponents, anticipate where a missed shot may come off the hoop so they can be in position to rebound, and feel the ball arch from their fingertips during a free throw. The combination of skills and practice is what provides "an" experience, which can be practiced, honed, and tweaked.

Wise Integration of Technology

In this blogpost, I will summarize two useful models for incorporating wise technology practices into the classroom. 

The first framework I'll introduce is the Triple E model, which is intended to help educators create lessons that allow students to use technology to meet and add value to educational goals. 

How can we use technology to extend, enhance, and engage student learning opportunities?

Framework Models - Triple E Framework

The Triple E model is useful in that the type of tool used is less important than the instructional strategies employed by the teachers using the tool. Well, why might that be beneficial? With the expansion of technological tools available and the growing trend to incorporate these tools in a classroom setting, the focus of Triple E is to hone the skillset of instructors, regardless of the tools that may be available. Districts that focus on instructional strategies could provide a better equilibrium even with a discrepancy in funding. Teachers that are trained to best use the technology they are provided places the emphasis less on the tools and more on the learning goals and practices. 

The second framework is the SAMR Model. I found several useful graphics that explain the premises of this method of technology integration in the classroom. I will briefly expand on each part, and I've shared a couple of graphics below: 

S: Substitution - This is the use of technology to present findings, rather than expression with pen and pencil. 

A: Augmentation - This is the practice of using technology as an additional source, or an augmentation of traditional school tools.

M: Modification - In this practice, technology significantly alters the learning objective. A student creates their own presentation, or collaborates with peers, and the technology is actually part of that learning objective.

R: Redefinition - The creation of an entirely new experience, by students, using technology. Here, technology is not only key, but part and parcel of the learning goal. Students connect knowledge both inside and outside the classroom.

See the graphic below. The "S" and the "A" parts of the model are examples of technology use as enhancements in the classroom, while the "M" and "R" focus more on ways tech can be transformative learning. You can see that, as you travel across the model from left to right, learning experiences and depth of knowledge becomes more reliant on the use of technology. 

An alternate graphic, below, shows the use of technology as a task of complexity using coffee orders as an example.

                                                        Image created by Jonathan Brubaker (@mia_sarx)

The SAMR framework can be used with both classroom enhancement and transformation. Educators and students can jump into whatever "cup" suites the needs of the given task. 

No matter what framework is used for wise integration, that different processes are studied and executed in schools means that teachers will continue to have opportunities to learn and place appropriate tech in classrooms as available.  

The Great Debate! Clark vs. Kozma

 Well, here we go...

Clark states that media do not influence learning, while Kozma argues that media has a great impact on learning. I think from the time frame the argument began, both scholars had valid points. Clark points out that learning MUST happen in the least expensive way, with broad reach. Kozma claps back with a "Hold on, kid! We've barely scratched the surface on relevance, process and data collection!"

The basis of this argument, in my opinion, is how to deliver gainful learning as an educator. Clark seems a little stuck on his idea that media cannot influence learning regardless of the ways in which it can be used; that it is the instruction that is the bottom line of whether learning is "caused". I can understand that point. Delivery of information is important, and humans learn with a conglomeration of information which they use relative to what they already know to be true. 

Kozma argues that learning is a response to what is already known, combined with a construct of new information that is processed and stored in relation to factors already present. 

What these guys agree on is there are no concrete data measurements on which to rely. 

 

Despite this great debate, here we are in 2024, and I think media hugely influences learning. The ability of technology to simulate open heart surgeries, flight, physics, economic patterns...really any academic field, any service field, has exploded. There are innumerable resources available to find out information and learning anything new will activate prior knowledge regardless of the delivery method of those findings. 

Perhaps the delivery method can be most efficient with further instruction. For instance, if you want to learn how to paint a hot air balloon, you might want advice from an art teacher who can point you in the direction of a website designed for amateur painters. But even without a personal reference, a novice painter could easily search for resources that would coach one through a first time painting exercise. In this example, even if a person's painting turned out to look more like a sunset than a hot air balloon, would they not have learned how to use certain brushes, palettes, canvases? No! Regardless of how their painting turned out, they would receive a wealth of knowledge to use for their next project, and that transfer of knowledge IS learning. 

EDT 619

 Grad School Blog!