Note: This post is in response to Week 3 Module 3 Blog 2
There are many ways of introducing a technology for use in the classroom. This can range from an interested teacher introducing a technology to a classroom simply because it is the latest “cool thing” they own (e.g. a 3D printer or Lego robot), the introduction of technology simply because it is more flexible (e.g. Interactive White Boards (IWBs) vs blackboards and overhead projectors) to adopting a technology school, state or nation-wide based on research.
There are many ways of introducing a technology for use in the classroom. This can range from an interested teacher introducing a technology to a classroom simply because it is the latest “cool thing” they own (e.g. a 3D printer or Lego robot), the introduction of technology simply because it is more flexible (e.g. Interactive White Boards (IWBs) vs blackboards and overhead projectors) to adopting a technology school, state or nation-wide based on research.
Ultimately there is usually some sort of process involved.
One concept to evaluate technology is to look at the “affordances” the
technology offers. This simply means looking at what the technology can do
based on its particular features. There have been attempts to make frameworks
to make this somewhat of an objective process – breaking a system down into
features such as read- or watch-ability, search-ability, integrate-ability,
share-ability (too many to list here) as well as basic features such as ease of
use, appear and reliability (Bower, 2008).
Whilst this process may serve to highlight affordances not previously
recognised, a problem is that the interactions between affordances and the
details of how they work are not considered and this can ultimately change the
learning experience (Bower, 2008).
It is a little like the advent of nutrition-ism in food – we can break a food
down into its components and identify the nutrients but the form of the food
and the manner with which it is consumed makes a difference to the way our
bodies process and react to it (Pollan, 2008).
So, if breaking down a technology into its affordances is
potentially flawed then how do we decide which technologies to use? Certainly
looking closely at the features offered is valuable. Another measure may be to
look carefully at the impact of the technology. What changes (positive or
negative) could it make to outcomes – for the student, the teacher, the school
or even beyond? (Kozma, 2005).
Interestingly, research backing is not always high on the list of priorities
for teachers or schools in choosing technology, possibly due to the research
cycle being outrun by technology development (Kennedy, 2017). How then do we determine impact?
References
Bower, M. (2008).
Affordance analysis – matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational Media International, 45(1),
3-15. doi:10.1080/09523980701847115
Kennedy, M. (2017). Role of
federal funding and research findings on adoption and implementation of technology-based
products and tools. Paper presented at the Edtech efficacy research
academic symposium, Washington D.C.
Kozma, R. B. (2005). Monitoring and evaluation of ICT for education
impact: a review. Monitoring and
Evaluation of ICT in Education Projects, 18.
Pollan, M. (2008). In defence
of food : the myth of nutrition and the pleasures of eating. Camberwell,
Vic.: Allen Lane.
