As I
applied for this program through George Mason, I remember writing about how
students are instantly engaged when technology is incorporated into a lesson. I
have seen it time and time again, when a new application appears on the tablet
or a new game pops up on our SmartBoard my students are hooked. Most of our
families come from low-income homes and technology tends to be scarcer. They may have to share time on dad’s phone with siblings or
have limited connection when Wi-Fi is available. Other students from affluent
homes in our division may have their own tablet or phone, but in some cases
time on these devices is limited by a parent or guardian. In both cases, these
factors lead to drive and engagement and my students literally fighting over
tablets or racing to computer lab.
Through our last class’s readings
and discussions, I’ve started to look at technology as a tool for engagement
not an answer to engagement. Tablet, laptops, and robots get students excited,
but also can get students off task or derail a well-planned lesson. Teachers needs to take in account the whole picture and weigh the pros and cons of weaving technology into a lesson or introducing it to your students. Before I
saw technology as a way to enhance a lesson, but that is not always the case. Through
the fifth design principal and our study of affordance analysis, I now see
technology a piece that needs to be well thought out and a planned component of the design process.
I agree with you that technology is not an answer to engagement. Just having a student on a device during class for the sake of being on a device does not mean that technology is being used effectively in the classroom. Technology needs to be carefully thought out through the design principles to make it meaningful and relevant to the students.
ReplyDeleteI think it's important that we start to lean toward using technology in ways that allow students to build on the 5 C's and that's part of what I consider when I am evaluating positive and negative affordances. If teachers are using ed tech tools in ways that don't fully support their possibilities, I tend to demonstrate other (more rich) uses of the resources that better support the PICKLE. The positive affordances of the ed tech tools we're evaluating should support these elements in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Engagement is a part of the process of learning but it is not learning itself. It reminds me of the article we read in class about the teacher who had her kids on iPads all day. They were engaged but were they learning?
ReplyDeleteI found what you said, "look at technology as a tool for engagement, not an answer to engagement." a key element in the affordance analysis process. I think it sums up the shift from a traditional teacher mind to a designer one, a teacher who looks at technology as something that should add to the lesson and allow students to reach the goal.
ReplyDeleteI think that considering the distraction factor in a lesson is a huge part of affordance analysis. I think that it is sometimes easy to be drawn to the cost of the technology, and how it can align with the goal of the lesson. Sometimes, it is easy to overlook what students may do with the technology while the teacher is on the other side of the classroom. In my experience, I’ve found that mitigating the distraction factor typically requires careful planning or an extra expense.
ReplyDelete