Actividades formativas, morales y de ocio programadas por la CPVA para su personal sanitario y afiliadas a IMT

Research has shown that integration of ICTs into the curriculum generally progresses along an evolutionary scale, ultimately from teachers having more

technological concerns to more nuanced pedagogical considerations of its use for student learning (Becta, 2004; Voogt, Fisser, et al., 2013). There is no doubting the breadth and depth of available ICT resources and tools available today affords diversity in terms of possible learning environments (OECD, 2013b), however, as discussed, the integration of ICT is contextually influenced (constrained or afforded) particularly at the school-based level and more over by the selections made by the teacher. Various technology

integration models and instructional design frameworks that characterise the assimilation of digital technologies and pedagogy now exist; some popular models relevant to this research will now be clarified in chronological order.

2.4.1 Flick and Bells’ guiding principles for using ICT in science (2000)

Whilst not a technology integration model as such, Flick and Bell (2000) proposed a set of five guiding pedagogical principles specifically for preparing pre-service science teachers for considering the purposeful use of technology in the classroom. These

pedagogical guiding principles were offered to pre-service science teachers to support the design of instructional applications of technology in ways aligned to the seminal science education reform documents mentioned earlier in this Chapter.

These five guiding principles included:

1. Technology should be introduced in the context of science content. 2. Technology should address worthwhile science with appropriate pedagogy.

3. Technology instruction in science should take advantage of the unique features of technology.

4. Technology should make scientific views more accessible.

40 relationship between technology and science. (Flick & Bell, 2000)

2.4.2 Newton and Rogers’ ICT thinking framework for science (2003)

Similarly, Newton and Rogers in the UK (2003) offered a thinking framework for using ICT in the science classroom. This thinking framework prefaced both the mode of engagement of the learner, as well as the properties and potential learning benefits of ICT tools as the two key instructional determinants necessary for meaningful learning with ICT (Newton & Rogers, 2003). In other words, a learning affordance perspective to the selection of ICT tools. Shown in Table 2.3 are the learner modes whilst using ICT ranging from passive to active participation.

Table 2.3: Learning modes and teaching/learning activities using ICT adapted from

Newton and Rogers (2003, p.114)

Purpose of ICT-enabled activity Learner’s role Obtaining knowledge Receiver Practice and revision Reviser

Exploring ideas Explorer

Collating and recording Receiver

2.4.3 Technology Integration Planning Model (TIP) (2004)

Wienke and Robyler (2004) designed a five-phased Technology Integration Planning (TIP) Model to help teachers plan for, implement, and assess their use of technology in instruction that became very popular in USA pre-service teacher courses. The TIP Model represents a five-phased pedagogical process designed to limit possible integration issues, as well as increase the likelihood that technology will enhance instructional practices (Wiencke & Roblyer, 2004). The planning considerations of this problem-solving based model are summarised below:

• Determine the relative advantage: What is the problem I am trying to solve? Do technology-based methods offer a solution with enough relative advantage?

41

• Decide on learning objectives and assessment: How will I know students have learned? What are the best ways of assessing these outcomes? • _{Design integration strategy: What kind of instructional methods or}

teaching strategies will work best? How can technology best support these methods? What do I need to do to prepare my students to use this technology method?

• Prepare the instructional environment: What equipment, software, media, and other resources will I need to support instruction? • _{Evaluate and revise integration strategies: What worked well? What}

could be improved? (Adapted from Wienke & Robyler, 2004)

2.4.4 Technology Integration Assessment Instrument (TIAI) (2005)

Britten and Cassady (2005) in the US developed a technology integration

assessment instrument (TIAI) intended for use as a planning and evaluative tool by school leaders and teachers. This rubric consists of seven dimensions of planning and evaluation of ICT-enabled learning including:

• Using technology to plan the lesson activity.

• _{Reference to the state ICT standards in planning the lesson activity [e.g. ACARA} General Capabilities: ICT capability].

• Reference to the state content standards in planning the lesson activity [e.g. Australian Curriculum: Science Inquiry Skills using digital technologies to construct a range of text types to present science ideas].

• _{Attention to the use of technology to support student needs.}

• Implementation of technology in the lesson activity impacts either the process or the product of teaching.

• Implementation of technology in the lesson activity impacts either the process or the product of learning.

• _{Technology is used in the product or in assessment.}

The TIAI proposes a continuum of four levels of technology integration ranging from non-essential uses of technology through to technology being an essential component of the lesson activity (Britten & Cassady, 2005). This rubric serves as a useful reference

42

point for comparison between each of the lessons observed in this study, and as a point of comparison across the cases.

2.4.5 ICT-TPCK (2005) and Technology Mapping by Angeli and Valanides (2009)

Using Shulman’s PCK (1986) construct as its theoretical basis (1986) Angeli and Valanides (2005) first proposed ICT‐related PCK as a distinct form of knowledge that makes a teacher competent to teach with ICT. According to Angeli and Valanides (2005), “the outcome of this complex instructional decision process will be a series of powerful pedagogical transformations (p. 162) and in doing so take the position of a transformative view of this technology knowledge base. Later Angeli and Valanides (2009) offered five key instructional design principles of knowing how to use technology to:

1. Identify topics to be taught with ICT in ways that signify the added value of ICT tools, such as topics that students cannot easily comprehend, or teachers face difficulties in teaching them effectively in class.

2. Identify representations for transforming the content to be taught into forms that are comprehensible to learners and difficult to be supported by traditional means. 3. Identify teaching strategies, which are difficult or impossible to be implemented

by traditional means, such as application of ideas into contexts not possible to be experienced in real life, interactive learning, dynamic and context‐situated feedback, authentic learning, and adaptive learning to meet the needs of any learner.

4. Select ICT tools with inherent features to afford content transformations and support teaching strategies.

5. Infuse ICT activities in the classroom (p.294)

These authors later proposed Technology Mapping as an approach to developing ICT- TPCK, that is, for this knowledge base to develop it is necessary to understand the connections amongst software affordances, content representations and the pedagogical uses of specific technology tools (Angeli & Valanides, 2013).

43

2.4.6 Technology Integration Matrix (2006)

The Florida Centre for Instructional Technology at the University of South Florida first developed the Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) in 2006, a constructivist model of technology integration to support teachers in using technology meaningfully in K-12 settings (Allsopp, Hohfield, & Kemker, 2007). The TIM rubric incorporates

characteristics indicative of meaningful constructivist learning environments, that is: active, collaborative, constructive, authentic and goal directed (Bransford et al., 2000; Howland et al., 2012) and then associates these characteristics with various levels of sophistication of technology integration: entry, adoption, adaptation, infusion and

transformation, thus creating a matrix of cells. The TIM rubric can then be used as a tool to evaluate the current use of ICT in the classroom and to help teachers plan more meaningful uses. This popular US technology integration model is available at http://fcit.usf.edu/matrix/ .

2.4.7 Substitution, Augmentation, Modification and Redefinition model (2006)

The SAMR model, popularised by Puentedura (2006) represents a pedagogical framework for categorising levels of sophistication in terms of teachers’ progression of technology integration in the classroom including:

• Substitution – technology is used as a direct substitute for what you might do already, with no functional change

• _{Augmentation – technology is a direct substitute, but there is functional} improvement over what you did without the technology.

• Modification – technology allows you to significantly redesign the task. • _{Redefinition – technology allows you to do what was previously not possible}

(Puentendra, 2015)

The first two stages pertain to students using technology to enhance learning activities which in many instances could be achieved without technology; the latter two stages refer to more transformational and student centered uses of technology. The simplicity of this model has in part lead to its popularity, for example, the SAMR model now features on some Australian Department of Education portals (e.g., Victoria and Queensland),

44

however, only scant literature exists to support the assertions and possible learning outcomes as implied by this framework (Hamilton, Rosenberg, & Akcaoglu, 2016). In relation to pedagogical reasoning, like the TIAI rubric, this continuum reflects the non- essential use of technology through to an essential use of technology in regards to the learning activity in question.

2.4.8 Technological pedagogical and content knowledge framework (2006)

For over 20 years Shulman’s (1986) notion of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) has been emphasised as an important construct describing the key knowledge base required for the content specialist teacher. Shulman (1986) referred to PCK as an

understanding of how particular teaching approaches fit together with content knowledge to employ “the most useful forms of representation of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations-in a word, the ways of representing and formulating the subject that it makes it comprehensible to students” (p. 9). Shulman also referred to two other key forms of content knowledge categories; content knowledge, referring directly to the substantive and syntactic disciplinary knowledge base required for teaching a discipline and curricular knowledge. Curricular knowledge by Shulman’s definition (1986) was;

The curriculum and its associated materials are the materia medica of pedagogy, the pharmacopoeia from which the teacher draws those tools of teaching that present or exemplify content and remediate or evaluate the adequacy of student accomplishments… How many individuals whom we prepare for teaching biology, for example, understand well the materials for that instruction, the alternatives texts, software, programs, visual materials, single concept films, laboratory demonstrations, or “invitations to enquiry” …” (p. 10)

However, Shulman did not elaborate the relationship between harnessing the affordances of technology to transforming content and pedagogy. Instead it was much later in 2006 with the emergence of a new model, known then as the TPCK model, that the first serious theoretical construct of PCK into the domain of teaching with technology emerged. The TPACK model is now elaborated.

Mishra and Koehler (2006) conceived a theoretical model to represent a new type of knowledge base, they posited was necessary for teachers to successfully integrate

45

technologies in educational settings. This highly referenced model is known as the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework (TPACK) to include the interplay of technology knowledge (TK) on Shulman’s (1986) original construct of pedagogical content knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Shown in Figure 2.1 is the TPACK framework. This includes Shulman’s original primary knowledge domains for teaching consisting of content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). However, the TPACK model extends these teacher knowledge domains by including a further knowledge domain, technology knowledge (TK), to understand the role of technology in the process of teaching and learning. The intersection of these knowledge domains refers to a new sophisticated teacher knowledge construct known as TPACK. According to this model, growth in TPACK implies there has been growth in the knowledge domains of CK, PK and PCK and TK.

According to Mishra and Koehler (2007) teaching with technology is made more complex or constrained, depending upon the institutional contexts in which it is situated. Lack of TK and access to ongoing professional learning can be a significant constraining factor in terms of pedagogical reasoning therefore limiting meaningful ICT-enabled classroom practices. Furthermore, the authors of the TPACK model argue the over emphasis on the use of ICT tools as ‘add-ons’, rather than focusing teacher professional development around how to use ICT effectively with students for learning will be unproductive. In other words, favouring a pedagogical perspective rather than a technocentric view is more effective (Mishra & Koehler, 2007).

46

Figure 2.1: The TPACK framework and its knowledge components. Reproduced by

permission of the publishers © 2012 by tpack.org

According to these authors teaching with technology is particularly confounded by the rapid evolution of technological innovations, presenting teachers with an

overwhelming proposition of how to keep up, in other words technology integration is in itself a ‘wicked problem’ (Mishra & Koehler, 2007). Instead, they argue that maintaining one’s currency in TK should not be the goal per se, instead asserting that teachers should develop a thoughtful attitude towards the integration of technology, positioning teachers as designers of curriculum that co-opts technology to support meaningful learning. In using the TPACK framework they advocate that teachers must think creatively and playfully as designers of their own relevant curricula (Mishra & Koehler, 2008).

Furthermore, they acknowledge that cultivating creative learning solutions is played out in very different classroom environments. Therefore, these solutions will be contextually constrained or afforded by the technological provisions made available in these different classroom environments.

The literature reviewed also reveals those who favoured ICT for student learning in the classroom are likely to have well developed TK. As mentioned, Cox et al, (2004) research surrounding ICT practices revealed that an understanding of the technical and cognitive affordances offered by different types of ICT was an important consideration in

47

ICT pedagogical reasoning. Reiterating these findings was Keengwe and Onchwari’s (2011) study, which revealed teachers who had a personal proficiency in TK tended overall to favour ICT as a learning tool. Drent and Meelissen’s (2008) study of Dutch teachers also revealed that TK competence does in fact positively influence the transformation towards a more student-centred pedagogy, and that this transformation takes place simultaneously along with experimentation in more innovative uses of ICT.

Whilst TPACK is now a highly cited framework for understanding the synergies of the knowledge bases required for meaningful ICT integration, the TPACK framework has come under considerable review as a usable construct. Voogt et al.’s (2013) review of the literature of the TPACK framework revealed three contrary views which included:

• “T (PCK) as extended PCK (S. Cox & Graham, 2009; Niess, 2005);

• TPCK as a unique and distinct body of knowledge (Angeli & Valanides, 2009), and

• _{TP (A) CK as the interplay between three domains of knowledge and their} intersections and in a specific context”(Koehler & Mishra, 2009).

Recommendations for further research arising from this synthesis included the need to further understand the TPACK knowledge base in specific subject domains;

understanding the complex relationship between teacher beliefs and ‘craft’ knowledge; and the development of valid and reliable subject specific instruments to asses TPACK, other than the commonly used self-assessment tools widely reported in the literature. A very recent measure of TPACK for a practical context in science, known as TPACK-P by Yeh, Hsu, Wu, Hwang, and Lin (2014) has appeared recently in the literature. The

construct of TPACK-P is elaborated later in this Chapter in section 2.4.13.

2.4.9 UNESCO ICT Competency Framework (2008)

Recognising that that digital competency is a human right in a world rapidly undergoing technological change UNESCO developed an ICT Competency Framework (2008) for teachers. This framework identifies and defines a set of digital competencies required by teachers for the meaningful integration of ICT in teaching and learning. Designed as a framework for policy makers and practioners, it aims to serve as a set of

48

guidelines highlighting how technology can be used to support pedagogy, curriculum, and assessment.

This framework is organised around three phases of knowledge acquisition; technology literacy, knowledge deepening and knowledge creation (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization UNESCO, 2008). It has since been implemented in several pre-service teacher training programs across various countries including Guyana, Thailand, and Russia. This ICT competency framework for teachers is

not dissimilar to the Australian National Professional ICT Teaching Standards (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), 2011) and elaborated in the

Teaching Teachers for the Future project (Australian Institute for Teaching and School

Leadership (AITSL), 2014) discussed in Chapter 1.

2.4.10 Learning outcomes and pedagogy attributes (LOPA) instrument (2008)

In 2008, researchers at the Centre for Schooling and Learning Technologies (C- SaLT), Perth Western Australia, where this research is situated, established a range of rubrics primarily designed to assist Western Australian government schools with their ICT integration plans (Newhouse & Clarkson, 2008). One of these rubrics was known as the learning outcomes pedagogy attributes (LOPA) rubric (see Appendix A) and was designed to support teachers to integrate technology from a holistic perspective, that is, to consider the entire classroom learning environment. The LOPA rubric was theoretically grounded in the learning environment dimensions as advocated by the US Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning in their report How People Learn: Brain, Mind,

Experience, and School (2005) which has been elaborated earlier in this Chapter. The

LOPA framework also drew upon the work of Productive Pedagogies by the Queensland Department of Education (1999), The Curriculum Framework by the Western Australian Curriculum Council (1998) and was also substantiated by Jonassen’s (1996) earlier work on constructivist learning environments using ICT.

The LOPA (2008) rubric focuses on the complexities and interdependences of the relationships that occur between the students, teachers, ICT, the physical environment as well as the curriculum and depicts this milieu of relationships in the schematic shown in Figure 2.2 (Newhouse, Clarkson, & Trinidad, 2005). Along with many other researchers

49

in this field, the C-SaLT researchers assert that explicating a causal link between the uses of ICT and learning outcomes is highly problematic, given that learning plays out within a specific contextual learning environment. Importantly classroom-learning environments are contextually constrained, and are most strongly influenced by the classroom teacher themselves. Instead the C-SaLT researchers advocate that collecting data on the entire learning environment is more useful. Taking an account of the factors then, as illustrated in Figure 2.2 will be helpful in seeking to understand the pedagogical reasoning and the instructional practices of the participants informing this study.

Figure 2.2: Entities that shape the entire learning environment within a classroom. As

seen in Newhouse et al. (2005, p. 152)

2.4.11 Technology learning activity types taxonomy by Harris et al. (2010)

Earlier work on the TPACK construct revealed that effective technology

integration required interdependent content, technological and pedagogical knowledge, emphasising the need for professional development efforts that did not simply focus on the development of technocentric skills. To support teachers’ professional efforts a group of seven researchers and teacher educators in the US developed a technology instructional planning taxonomy. Stating that whilst these learning activity-types were intended to be pedagogically neutral; the taxonomy instead, provides a useful means to marry suitable digital tools and resources to best support particular science curricular content goals (J Harris et al., 2010).These learning activity types were broadly categorized by these authors as either:

50 • Conceptual knowledge building; • _{procedural knowledge building, and/or;} • knowledge expression learning activities.

Over 40 activity types have been identified to date by this group where ICT could be used in the instructional design of various learning activities (J Harris et al., 2010). Shown in Table 2.4 is a snapshot of possible ICT tools and digital resources that align to science

In document Educació i Cultura 2015, vol. 25 (página 186-195)