Literature Review Intent

This may change by tomorrow...

I welcome your questions/comments regarding the proposed statements I'm considering for my literature review.

1. 
   The intent of this paper is to review the literature discussing the necessary supports which strengthen the integration of technology in K-12 schools.
2. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the factors which contribute towards the cultivation of technology-rich learning environments.
3. This paper will review the literature on the factors which contribute to effective integration of ICT (Information and Communication Technology) in K-12 schools.
4. The purpose of this paper is to explore how schools and districts can become learning organizations for technology-embedded instructional improvements.

In the literature review I will attempt to identify a gap in the area of educational technology support for principals. Potential research questions: How can a school district strengthen support for principals in effectively leading 21st century schools? How can a school district develop leadership networks and professional communities as contexts for supporting technology rich learning environments?

Enactivism

“All doing is knowing and all knowing is doing” (Maturana & Varela, 1987, p. 27) is a slogan exemplifying enactivism, a new philosophical world view.

I was particularly interested in Dr. Qing Li’s presentation today about enactivism and the article she shared with the class. I was drawn to the reciprocal relationship implied with enactivism. However, I’m wrestling with comparing enactivism with my understanding of constructivism.

In the article, the authors claim that enactivism means that “our mind, body, and the world are inseparable.” In addition, one of the criticisms of constructivism is that “constructivism is concerned only with cognitive knowledge. It does not explain unformulated or subconscious knowledge, it does not consider how things might be known intuitively or instinctively, and it does not consider how emotions are constructed or their role in learning” (Begg, 2000, p.2). Is it really true that constructivism is only concerned with cognitive knowledge?

In the article, objectivist, constructivist and enactivist assumptions are compared not to suggest one should be replaced by the other; but to provide a different lens to look through. Always referring to myself as a constructivist I was a surprised by the dualism comparison. I can’t say that I considered constructivists believing in a “knower vs. known” dichotomy and separating the physical from the mental. Personally, I think of everyone as a learner. When engaged in learning, there is potential for learning construction by all learners – teacher and student and others.

Enactivism implies the knower and the world are mutually specifying and co-emerging. This sounds a lot like connectivism. I would also be interested in seeing how connectivism contrasts with enactivism.

Definition of Educational Technology

Change is Constant
The evolving definition of educational technology is yet another personal and professional reminder that change is indeed constant.

I believe educational technology can be generally and simply described as two parts - technical and pedagogical. The technical component refers to the foundation of hardware, software, audiovisual and other media and functionality of the technical components. The pedagogical component refers to the processes and applications of technology in teaching and learning. Both the technical and pedagogical components are necessary and interconnected. For example, a solid technical foundation allows educators to concentrate on “how” technologies are used to create technology-rich learning environments. In small school jurisdictions it is common for one individual to wear many hats and have responsibilities which encompass both pedagogical and technical tasks. However, in larger school jurisdictions and post secondary environments the roles and responsibilities of an educational technologist and computer technician may be more transparent and distinct.

Similarly, Jim Cambridge, a research officer with the Centre for the study of Education in an International Context (CEIC) at the University of Bath - http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsjcc/Presentation3/ , describes the differences between technology in education and technology of education. Technology in education refers to the technical skills. An example of this would be installing software and knowing how to use the components of the software with other peripherals (i.e. technology as a tool). Technology of education refers to the technological pedagogical and content skills and the educational applications of knowledge (i.e. technology for teaching and learning).

It was interesting to review the history of the AECT definitions as a “snapshot in time” and think about the various influences, contexts, and rationales that changed each definition to reflect each time period. I noted in the 1963 definition the concept of media instrumentation was used to describe the significance of both people and instruments similar to my own definition. There is also reference to “method and medium” which reminds me of Marshall McLuhan’s famous line: “the message is the medium” and Jim Cambridge’s quote, “Let’s concentrate on the message, not the messenger” (Web-based Learning Presentation, 2002).

In the contemporary definition the identifying label reverted from “instructional technology” to “educational technology” as first used in 1972 and the definition demonstrates an increased attention to ethical issues within the field. Similar to the 1972 definition, the term “facilitating” learning reappears in the definition. There is a recognition of learner ownership and the role of educational technology being more facilitative rather than controlled. Another new feature in the 2004 definition is the use of “study” due to the increased interest in designing environments that facilitate learning through research and reflective practice instead of delivering learning.
(Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary, 2008, p. 5)

Can “educational technology” be described as key ideas, values, an abstract concept, a theory, framework, field, profession, job title, or temporary snapshot in time? I believe educational technology embodies all of these things and applaud how the AECT definition committee fittingly describe educational technology metaphorically as a “sphere of activity” in which people interact with other people, data and things in pursuit of improved learning (AECT Definition and Terminology Committee document #MM4.0, 2004, p.14). It is also evident the newest 2004 definition clearly aligns with the AECT mission: “to provide international leadership by promoting scholarship and best practices in the creation, use, and management of technologies for effective teaching and learning in a wide range of settings” (AECT Definition and Terminology Committee document #MM4.0, 2004, p.18).

Denis Hlynka provides a thought provoking analysis of the definition and identifies several problems that will surely assist the next writing committee in revising the definition (Educational Technology, 2008). Hlynka noted the intended audience for the definition should include everyone instead of being delimited to students entering graduate programs. I believe there are numerous purposes and audiences for a definition of educational technology and can attest to the usefulness of a definition with the following personal experience.

Recently, I accepted a new position as a district supervisor of technology. Family, friends and colleagues began asking many questions: What is a supervisor of technology? Does that mean you will ensure computers are working in schools? Will you be responsible for all hardware/software in the district? Most of the questions seemed to be infrastructure or technically related questions (i.e. technology as a tool). It was also assumed by many individuals that I would be situated in the Information Technology (IT) department in the district office building. Instead, I will primarily work with the Instructional Services department and focus on “how” technology is used for improved learning in K-12 schooling.

As I began to meet with senior district administrators and several consultants that will be part of my team and I continued to recognize the necessity to define my title as well as the role of the team in order to clarify our responsibilities. Subsequently, I engaged in discussion with the team of consultants and it was decided our team would be called the “educational technology” team and we would use the current AECT definition to help communicate the role of the team in the district. My new title is now supervisor of educational technology. I’m anticipating and hoping the questions that people ask about my role will change and their assumptions about my responsibilities will also change (i.e. technology for teaching and learning) by using the AECT definition:

Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources. (Januszewski and Molenda, 2008)

Educational Technologists

I loved the quote that Dr. Jacobsen shared with us about educational technologists as it suitably describes how I felt as each doctoral student provided a self-introduction today:
“Educational technologist can be recognized by the stars in their eyes. They know they are sitting on the most explosive potential of the century. Theirs is the apex of innovative motivation. Whether they are fashioning learning environments, creating media, designing instruction or effecting research and theory, educational technologists have a dream- a dream that can sustain them, and those they touch, well into the next century” (Beckwith, 1988)

It was really exciting to meet so many outstanding individuals that are also on the doctoral journey in educational technology! I was fascinated by the variety of backgrounds and interests in the group and the connections to education and technology. The following diagram is a word cloud I created using Wordle to capture the topics that I found intriguing as everyone provided introductions during today’s class.

Doctoral Seminar in EdTech

I'm currently preparing to participate in a summer session doctoral seminar in educational technology at the University of Calgary. My blog will be used for reflection during the summer session.

About Me...
I have always been interested in the impact of educational technology on teaching and learning and started pursuing a PhD in Educational Technology in September of 2008 under the supervision and guidance of Dr. Michele Jacobsen. Originally, I am from Lethbridge, AB and received a B.Ed. from the University of Lethbridge in 1991 with a major in mathematics and minor in physical sciences. In 2000, I completed a case study research and thesis, entitled, “Technology Mentorship: A Staff Development Opportunity for Educators” and received a M.Ed. from University of Alberta. Currently, I am on maternity leave from the Calgary Catholic School District and will return to work in August as Supervisor of Educational Technology.

Throughout my career as a teacher, assistant principal and district consultant, I have been involved in creating technology resources, speaking at conferences, developing professional development opportunities for teachers and administrators and researching various aspects of technology integration. My experiences as an educator in the area of educational technology in two large urban school districts in the province, leading district initiatives for Alberta Initiatives for School Improvement (AISI) projects as well as technology projects funded through Alberta Education grants, developing research methods and analyzing data, have contributed to an interest in pursuing further research, specifically the professional development of administrators as educational technology leaders.

I am looking forward to the summer class and hope to explore, to grow, to take risks and to dream the possibilities!

Web 2.0 & Cloud Computing

“It isn’t a disgrace not to reach the stars, but it is a disgrace to have no stars to reach for.”
- Benjamin Mays

When I think of Web 2.0, I think of innovative web-based tools such as wikis, blogs, social networking and social bookmarking sites to name a few. One of the common aspects that separate Web 2.0 tools from the first introduction of web sites is the provision for reading and writing content seamlessly. Thus, many refer to Web 2.0 as the read-write web. The Internet as we know it today, promotes information retrieval and contribution, connectivity, communication, collaboration and co-construction among users. Tools such as RSS feeds (really simple syndication) are used to alert readers when changes occur to specified web content to help retrieve data. In social bookmarking sites, users can store and share data according to multiple descriptive phrases or tags, providing a non-linear and non-hierarchical categorization or aggregation of data. In blogs, posts are archived and stored in chronological order by date. Generally, anyone can contribute, comment or provide feedback on blog entries. In a wiki community, users connect and communicate with each other. They can redo or undo each other’s work and collaboratively build collective knowledge. Connections are paramount in the construction of knowledge.




Where is all this data stored? The cloud can be used as a metaphor for the Internet. Cloud computing refers to the data centres that store all the common data that is not stored locally on your own computer. Whenever you create an account on many of the Web 2.0 sites, you are in fact storing your content off site or virtually. This is what many refer to as “cloud computing.” The images in the clouds seem to shape and define one another; they are often continuously joined images with various parts connected with no identifiable centre. A cloud based work environment is often used to describe technological tools that enable collaboration, connections and co-construction of knowledge, such as Web 2.0 tools.

How do Web 2.0 tools and cloud based work environments shape your narrative for 21st century learning? You may consider reading the article, Orchestrating the Media Collage by Jason Ohler (2009) and think about the eight guidelines provided for teachers in using Web 2.0 as a social web. The guidelines that can help teachers promote the crucial skills associated with digital literacy include:
1. Shift from text centrism to media collage.
2. Value writing and reading now more than ever.
3. Adopt art as the next R.
4. Blend traditional and emerging literacies.
5. Harness report and story.
6. Practice private and participatory social literacy.
7. Develop literacy with digital tools and about digital tools.
8. Pursue fluency.

I would also recommend viewing Learning to Change Changing to Learn – (5:35) Teacher Tube video clip about change. What is your narrative about 21st century learning?

My Doctoral Journey Begins

I started my doctoral journey in September of 2008 but didn’t really feel I had started the journey until today. As I begin considering my research proposal it now seems real to me! I’m contemplating what I will do, how I will do it and why it is important. Since my field of study is in educational technology leadership, I will continue to use this blog to track my thoughts, ideas, findings throughout my journey and hopefully get some great feedback along the way!

If you are interested in providing any feedback on my starting point, let me know and I can send you a copy of my independent study exploring the following question: Why would an interpretive case study and methodological processes using visual methods support a legitimate exploration of the strategies used by educational leaders in order to cultivate teaching and learning with technology?

In the article I wrestle with the choice of qualitative methodological approaches drawing on literature in case study research, visual methods, and educational technology, along with my own personal experiences in conducting an exploratory research project in the proposed field of study from 2006-2008. This independent study was particularly beneficial for me in reflecting on my past research experiences and identifying how I can become a more reflexive researcher in the future. For example, in the article there is a hyperlink to the appendix where I included examples of how photographs were used for representation purposes in the past exploratory study I was involved in. I also discuss how the use of photographs could support a more collaborative approach in follow-up conversations with the participants in a future study. You may find reading this article helpful if you are considering case study as a method for inquiry or if you would like ideas in using visual methodological approaches for own research.