Chapter 12, Bower (2017) Design of Technology-Enhanced Learning: Integrating Research and Practice

Initial Thoughts…

My next task for this module is to provide a reflective summary of the Chapter 12 of the core eBook. My first disclaimer is that I have not read the whole book (although I really wish I had) admittedly I have read chapter 6 and this chapter as allocated to me by James. I would have loved to indulge further (and will certainly set some time aside for this) but I have not been able to find the time in the busyness of life… Despite this, I do feel that James’ approach to collaboratively exploring this eBook within a group setting has been very beneficial. Each student was allocated two chapters each. Our task was to read and reflect upon this, using our blog space, and then to collectively discuss as a group. The opportunity to explore understanding and appreciate the different approaches to evaluating the chapters has been interesting. 

Personally, I think this approach is a great example of using TEL to flip learning, by introducing the learning concepts (in this case the eBook chapters and online reflective piece) outside of the classroom space, and then using the classroom time to deepen understanding through collaborative discussion (Gordon 2014).

There has been a consistent approach throughout the module that has included some individual investigations into learning management systems in general, and Canvas as the new VLE for this university, followed by in class discussion.  Some of this I will explore in subsequent blogs, but for now I am going to turn my attention to the conclusions and future directions outlined in chapter 12. 

Chapter Review…

The chapter abstract claims that the book provides the foundations on which to build TEL, both now and in the future. This is based on research to date, historic trends, educator support and a showcase of impactful technologies. Impactful is defined as those that offer visceral learning experiences, real world experiences through technology. It is clear from this chapter that a collaborative approach to TEL design is important and that it should be research-driven and pedagogically underpinned. This is a familiar approach to my own working practices. I take a triadic approach to learning design; Goal (learning outcomes), Action (learning activities), role of technology. I also have a strong sense of the importance of educator and student support and training, and the need for sustainable TEL approaches. By this I mean accessible technology tools rather than advanced skills tools. Those that educators can adopt with ease, comfort, and confidence. Especially given the current climate in HE and the pressure of TEL innovation with limited time and resources (Garrison, D.R. and Vaughan, N.D.2013).

This brings me onto the drivers for TEL and the first of the six section of this chapter: The Current State of TEL Learning Design. Whilst highlighting some of the drivers e.g. access to learning, digital learning skills, it also dispels assumptions such as students will automatically know how to use learning technologies. This I believe is essential in successful design. Students will without doubt be familiar with certain technologies. For example, disruptive technologies identified by Flavin (2017) such Google Search and Wikipedia, but…that does not necessarily mean they know how to use these technologies effectively within the learning process, or that they will understand the use of technologies such as quizzing tools or navigate the virtual learning environment or learning management system. This will ultimately require an effective pedagogical strategy, such as clear scaffolding and guidance. I think this chapter provides a good basis for understanding the pedagogical complexities of TEL design by explaining pedagogy as three separate elements: Pedagogical perspectives (learning theories and beliefs) such as behaviorism or social constructivism, Pedagogical approaches such as collaborative learning or experiential learning, and Pedagogical strategies such as positioning, questioning and scaffolding. It also recommends the TPACK model as a framework that can help educators to consider the different areas of technologies integration and the relationship between technology, pedagogy and content knowledge.

TPACK is the result of many years of research focusing on teaching and learning practices in HEIs and emphasises the importance of teachers having technological understanding (Mishra and Koehler, 2006). The key elements of the TPACK framework are:

• Technology knowledge (TK): knowledge of digital and non-digital technologies
• Pedagogical knowledge (PK): knowledge of the teaching methods and approaches
• Content knowledge (CK): knowledge of the subject discipline
• Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Discipline specific pedagogical knowledge that addresses effective ways of teaching a topic
• Technological content knowledge (TCK): Understanding technologies and how they can be used to represent content
• Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK): Understanding how certain technologies can be used for educational purposes
• Technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK): Collegial knowledge of using technology for pedagogical purposes in a way that supports the student’s development of content knowledge

Using the TPACK framework at the learning design phase can support technology integration discussions from a theoretical, pedagogical, and methodological perspective. TPACK can guide curriculum design conversations and help teaching teams create conceptual and seamless learning environments and facilitate key discussions and teacher knowledge in effective technology integration (Mishra and Koehler, 2006). Whilst TPACK can be used to shape key design conversations, Bower highlights that it provides little guidance on the types of flexible pedagogies or what technologies might be useful. 

What is interesting is the notion of positioning teaching as a design science. If this is something that interests you then I would advise reading Diana Laurillards’ book ‘Teaching as a Design Science’ (2012). Another interesting aspect, and something that I explore within my practice, is the pedagogical flexibility that TEL creates and approaches such as flipped learning, blended learning, flexible learning and social learning. The enhancements and advances that can be afforded by TEL. TEL has significant potential to change the way we learn, what we need to know and how we come to now it (Flavin 2017). This of course rests on the shoulders of the educators and their ability to develop a deep understanding of the design process. There are many barriers and issues identified by Bower, and he highlights these as: technical and digital capabilities, cognitive load, collaboration problems, negative dispositions, and inappropriate learning design. As I have mentioned in my previous blogs a complex and often messy process…

References

Flavin, M. (2017) ‘Disruptive Technology Enhanced Learning’.

Garrison, D.R. and Vaughan, N.D. (2013) ‘Institutional change and leadership associated with blended learning innovation: Two case studies’, The Internet and Higher Education, 18(Supplement C), pp. 24-28.

Laurillard, D., 2013. Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. Routledge.

Gordon, N. (2014) Flexible Pedagogies: technology-enhanced learning. Higher Education Academy.

Mishra, P. and Koehler, M.J. (2006) ‘Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge’, Teachers college record, 108(6), pp. 1017-1054.

Chapter 6, Bower (2017) Design of Technology-Enhanced Learning: Integrating Research and Practice

Initial Thoughts

This week’s task was to read an allocated chapter of the core book for the Investigating TEL module. When I discovered that chapter 6 was Designing for Technology Enhanced Learning I was delighted. I have been doing a lot of thinking about learning design lately, especially in respect to blended learning design through the curriculum design and development projects I am leading. I am already using some of the learning design approaches in the Curriculum Design session I have facilitated for academics. These sessions are based on the Arena Blended Connected (ABC) Curriculum Design Method  . ABC curriculum design is an engaging hands-on, card-based design method. It is built on curriculum design research from the JISC* (Viewpoints) and Diana Laurillard’s  six learning types

And adapted by University Colleague London (All ABC resources are released under Creative Commons). Through a 90-minute rapid design approach that allows teaching teams to identify the types and sequences of learning activities through a visual storyboarding approach. It also gives teaching teams the opportunity to engage in those critical design conversations. Resulting in richer blending learning designs. This of course is the beginning of the design process and my usual approach is to translate the design onto a Trello. I then use the Trello design board to manage the curriculum design process and any digital development work. The idea is that once all design iterations are complete (and there are often many iterations) the design is then built on the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE).

Chapter Review

Bower’s, approach to this chapter is to firstly define and consider designing and design thinking as a discipline, which seems like a good place to start. The idea is that this provides the fundamental knowledge for designing for learning or learning design as it is later referred to. I found it useful to start to consider the chapter in this structured, systematic way.  In explaining what design is, Bower uses the work of many scholars but what I take away from this is that design involves, purposeful activity, critical thinking, structured practice and scientific reflection. Design also encompasses both art and sciences. I can certainly relate to some of these principles in my own learning design practices, which are often complex iterative and challenging. A feel a little reassured that the complexities are because it actually is messy and complex.

As I now begin to feel a little reassured, we move on to focusing on the notion of ‘design thinking’, which in the simplest form are the thinking skills that underpin the design. In the not so simplest of forms, Bower, points to 10 aspects of design thinking:

The chapter continues to evolve, highlighting the concept of viewing teaching as a design science, a discipline in its own right. As it uses what is known about teaching and learning to achieve the goal of student learning (Laurillard 2012). I think this emphasises the role that technology is having on the nature of learning and learning design. It also makes me think about the changing role of the teacher, which I started to highlight on my blog home page. The changing landscape of education through TEL and the move towards more flexible modes of delivery and the pedagogical challenges and opportunities this brings (Gordon 2014).

Another key challenge to highlight is the role of reflection in the design process and the developments that can be achieved through ‘reflection-in-action’. Consideration for the pedagogic intention of designing for learning and maintaining the focus on the learner. A distinction is made between a learning task and a learning activity. What Bower is referring to here is the view that learning can never be wholly designed, only design for i.e. the learner will take the task definition, interpret and modify it (in their own way) and the activity is a representation of that task. Learner autonomy adds yet another layer of complexity to the learning design process. We cannot assume the learners’ behaviour is under control or that they are complaint learners, as students rarely use technology the way they are obliged to do so (Goodyear 2000). This is why a robust pedagogical strategy is vital so that learning tasks are positioned and guided with clear scaffolding.

A Learning Design Conceptual Map is discussed as a general, descriptive framework of Learning Design and a useful referent for designers. It does not provide any guidance or recommendations, but I think it is helpful in consideration of the key concepts and interrelationships of the learning design challenges.

References

Laurillard, D., 2013. Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. Routledge.

Gordon, N. (2014) Flexible Pedagogies: technology-enhanced learning. Higher Education Academy.

Goodyear, P. (2000) ‘Environments for lifelong learning’, in  Integrated and holistic perspectives on learning, instruction and technology. Springer, pp. 1-18.