The document summarizes the findings of a survey of 700 practitioners at 16 further education colleges about their use of technology. Key findings include:
1) Practitioners are natural explorers of technology and describe its impact in terms of teaching and learning rather than just the technologies themselves.
2) Over 90% see the learning platform Moodle as normal practice in their work.
3) Practitioners develop technology skills through personal exploration and insight rather than formal training, resulting in a diverse range of experiences and approaches.
4) Professional development should focus on pedagogy over technology and support the "reflective practitioner" that emerges when digital natives become professionals.
The Contemporary World: The Globalization of World Politics
The Digital Practitioner: reflections on LSIS survey of technology in action
1.
2. The context of our Enquiry Now we are 11….. Background; What has changed in 11 years of College elearning & edtech Can we find new ways to describe Impact? What should staff development look like in a digital learning world? Survey; Staff Attitudes to learning technology in action 2011 (LSIS Survey) Conclusions; The rise of the reflective practitioner The emergence of the Web 2.0 practitioner Applying Learning Analytics to reflective CPD
3. The context of our Enquiry Now we are 11….. What has changed in 11 years of College research How can we describe Impact? What should staff development look like The rise of the reflective practitioner The emergence of the Web 2.0 practitioner Digital Native confidence used professionally
13. The resources of our enquiry Now we are 11….. Background; Survey of 16 FE Colleges, 700 Practitioners, Summer 2011 Survey structured against 7-levels of “higher level” thinking Survey offered structured & free text responses on user ‘feelings’ Learning Analytics; Using SurveyMonkey & Analytics to produce individual narratives Outcomes give, system, subject, institution & individual views Outcomes; Can professional practice drive new technology adoption? Creating ‘meta-skills’ framework to map the rise of the reflective practitioner See following slides for examples of these
23. The seven levels of higher-level thinking using “technology in action” Higher level thinking Indicative description 1 Drive to think & work flexibly The ability to use technology in different ways than originally covered in training or the Manual. Making technology bring learning to life. Personalising learning through the use of technology 2 Ability to adapt technology to purposeful pedagogy The ability to make technology contribute to learning for learners rather than seeing technology as an end in itself. Includes widening participation, increasing retention, particularly amongst hard-to-reach learners 3 Vision to create imaginative blended learning design Learning and demonstrating the skill of redesigning teaching and learning by blending in technology to other forms and methods of teaching and learning. This refers to skills developed through practice and engagement with peers and learners rather than in formal sessions or using formal learning resources 4 Curiosity to involve learners in curriculum delivery & design The Learner Voice. Involving learners in the design and personalising of learning. Student e-learning monitors in classes. Involving learners in the experience of learning in the widest sense 5 Imagination to develop future learning plans Using technology in helping learners to develop management of their own journey, to account for their learning and plan future learning. Improving the tutorial process, making learning more relevant to the needs of each individual learner 6 Desire to account for personal and purposeful effectiveness Using technology to develop the skills of reflective thinking. Capturing ideas and themes to inform teacher learning journeys through personal learning space. Developing professional accountability 7 Capacity to develop collaborative and cooperative working To look across and out of the organisation to work with and for others. An open mindedness. Working adaptively to accommodate the ideas of others. Assimilation of the best ideas.
24.
25.
26.
Notas do Editor
The world must have moved on in the 11 years of e-learning in FE. Can we use the same models of training? Were we capturing the right profile by focusing on process rather than behaviour. We felt we needed to look at technology in action rather than technology as a process. Technology in everyday life appears all consuming. We are all now digitally indigenous. We also recognised the increasing focus on reflective learning and the availability of personal technology (technology for the one not just technology for the many). It's not only defining impact, but re-discovering it by finding what motivates a narrative response and letting us see that previous surveys had failed to capture the transformation. The digitally indigenous Technology in action Impact is a function of confidence not process skills
The world must have moved on in the 11 years of e-learning in FE. Can we use the same models of training? Were we capturing the right profile by focusing on process rather than behaviour. We felt we needed to look at technology in action rather than technology as a process. Technology in everyday life appears all consuming. We are all now digitally indigenous. We also recognised the increasing focus on reflective learning and the availability of personal technology (technology for the one not just technology for the many). It's not only defining impact, but re-discovering it by finding what motivates a narrative response and letting us see that previous surveys had failed to capture the transformation. The digitally indigenous Technology in action Impact is a function of confidence not process skills
Respondents are given a range of reactive responses to common technology processes which are not mutually exclusive. Respondents nuts respond with how they feel rather than what they know. The Matrix and the analysis. Going for the emotive response but on the hypothesis of confidence and capability. Respondents are then invited to explain their choice to themselves and us. Confidence and capability = Capacity, which when aggregated gives an organisational signature. We wanted to capture the affordances of the technology. Capacity at the institution is an aggregation of it. We have another of factors that have come together to give us this rich data. A great example of a mixed model of surveying. What adds to this is to take the data head on The use of Survey Monkey's limitations to arrive at a serendipitous survey structure that encouraged narrative responses. We might need to explain what happened to the other 147,000 words!
These are the findings which are really robust. Profiles are similar and the questions are answered consistently. There is a striking acceptance that technology is to be explored rather than be directed to. Assistance is required in purposeful application rather than direction in using discrete software. What we have is an overwhelming desire to explain the use of technology rather than simply ticking boxes. 93,000 free response words. Drawn from 16 providers, 240,000 narrative words that tell over 700 unique stories. The free response is a revelation in its own right. Nigel: And experimenters! who work in a strong ethical framework. Nigel: Including the development of wider communities for learning and sharing practice and Nigel: A significant minority with HE teaching through partners operate with more than one learning platform - usually Blackboard.
We think impact has been radically mis-defined. We believe impact is a function of how quickly the ‘shock of the new’ is explored and subsumed into teaching. It includes the degree of turbulence caused by confronting new technologies. Confidence is critical factor in applying technology that when added to understanding defines capability that leads to the development of very rich interlinked uses of technology.
The use of tech in FE has been transformative and in ways that just weren't captured by traditional survey methods.That allowing free text responses has demonstrated a remarkably consistency in which technology is seen by practitioners. It is reflected in institutional policy. Like most transformation, it has been subterranean and beneath the radar.The impact is a richness of the approach and we could explore with learners the richness of the learner experience in terms of the experience of the technology and its potential is the mash up for staff. By creating the conditions for practitioners to produce their narratives educational purpose?
The world must have moved on in the 11 years of e-learning in FE. Can we use the same models of training? Were we capturing the right profile by focusing on process rather than behaviour. We felt we needed to look at technology in action rather than technology as a process. Technology in everyday life appears all consuming. We are all now digitally indigenous. We also recognised the increasing focus on reflective learning and the availability of personal technology (technology for the one not just technology for the many). It's not only defining impact, but re-discovering it by finding what motivates a narrative response and letting us see that previous surveys had failed to capture the transformation. The digitally indigenous Technology in action Impact is a function of confidence not process skills
The skills and knowledge demonstrated by our sample has not emerged from systematic use of technology following training, but the insightful use of technology to solve particular problems emerging in the interaction with learners and sometimes colleagues. This understanding is supplemented by their experiences as users of technology in their personal lives as much as by training. We think achieve this through insight but would not consider it learning because it is undertaken in private, away from college. in private. How fast is the assimilation between what we do in social gaming space and what we do in teaching. Interesting how many technologies that were important are now not mentioned. Word processing, email and spreadsheets are no longer mentioned as they are (for our representative sample) bar a few, these are taken as hidden. The tipping point of technologies
Bound by a the values of effective teaching. (description) Boundaries of individual software are not discussed and there is little reliance on single technology use. Rather there is a fragmenting into highly personalised experiences and applications of technology, woven into a tapestry of application. What holds it together is values of teaching and learning. The narratives constantly imply these values and thus prevent chaos. This defines the ethics of their profession. This is utterly consistent with ‘do no harm’ and encourage the ownership of the understanding of technology amongst learners. The enquiring mind is a reflective learner. A reflective learner is able to manage their own learning journey. Managing one’s own learning supports personal accountability for it. REfLECT allows its presentation. Training of IT needs to change to a more individualised approach to satisfy the enquiring approach. Process learning is a poor strategy for embedding good use of technology. This is still done. The teacher is no longer a vessel to be filled with technical knowledge. Embedding technology as a process can only be managed by the individual teacher. The institution is not a gate keeper to this nor can it suggest that all teachers use bespoke software in a given way. Context of learning is all. Trust and facilitation not control and compliance.
What we believe is that teachers now have the tools and approach to make the most of this new approach. The question is do the institutions have the capacity to recognise this and make it happen? This ties to our idea of combining COPD and SD. Critically the teacher manages it and accounts for themselves. The ideas of meta skills arose from work completed during secondment to BECTA
The use of tech in FE has been transformative and in ways that just weren't captured by traditional survey methods.That allowing free text responses has demonstrated a remarkably consistency in which technology is seen by practitioners. It is reflected in institutional policy. Like most transformation, it has been subterranean and beneath the radar.The impact is a richness of the approach and we could explore with learners the richness of the learner experience in terms of the experience of the technology and its potential is the mash up for staff. By creating the conditions for practitioners to produce their narratives educational purpose?
The use of tech in FE has been transformative and in ways that just weren't captured by traditional survey methods.That allowing free text responses has demonstrated a remarkably consistency in which technology is seen by practitioners. It is reflected in institutional policy. Like most transformation, it has been subterranean and beneath the radar.The impact is a richness of the approach and we could explore with learners the richness of the learner experience in terms of the experience of the technology and its potential is the mash up for staff. By creating the conditions for practitioners to produce their narratives educational purpose?