Week 4 Blog: Does e-Inclusion lead to marketization of the poor?

What is e-Inclusion?  E-Inclusion refers to a social movement aimed at minimizing the global digital divide as well as at providing a digital dividend for corporations.  This symbiotic relationship fosters “…entrepreneurship among the poor-which, according to Prahalad, is a solution to global poverty” (Schwittay, 2012, p. 45).  C. K. Prahalad, was a professor at the Stephen M. Ross School of Business and the University of Michigan and was a corporate strategy expert.

The question is who benefits the most from e-Inclusion programs- the poor in emerging markets such as India, Asia, Africa, Latin America and Central Europe or high-tech multinational corporations?  One could argue that this relationship benefits both parties, but I feel that multinational corporations usually prevail.  Corporations, such as HP (Hewlett-Packard) use e-inclusion to showcase global citizenship initiatives.  “Digital corporate citizenship” is an example of global corporate citizenship and refers to the social movement that the high-tech industry is involved in where rural poor are given access to ICTs in the hope of closing the global digital divide (Smith, 2002).  This allows corporations to “…present themselves to governments of developing companies as responsible and trustworthy partners” (Kirkpatrick, 2001, p. 25).

Matten and Crane (2005) argue that this type of citizenship is motivated by corporations because they need to ensure operating platforms for themselves in emerging markets.  The majority of these countries do not provide citizenship rights to the poor, so in most cases, corporations offer necessary social rights such as employment and welfare services but only if they feel that the profits they make are worth the expenditures.  What happens when these corporations feel that providing public services are not in the company’s best interest?

This week’s readings have had a strong moral impact on me-as an educator and as a global citizen.  I feel that the poor in emerging markets are vulnerable to both their governments and to multinational corporations.  The entrepreneurial opportunities that e-Inclusion offers can benefit the poor in many countries, but Karnani, a scholar and Prahalad’s colleague, has been critical of statements that poverty can be eradicated through profits (Jenkins, 2005; Landrum, 2007).  I agree with Karnani.  I don’t believe that eradicating poverty is as simple as offering employment opportunities to disadvantaged individuals.  There are many other issues in these countries that need to be addressed such as women’s rights, dependable employment, political stability, etc.  Also, even though many multinational corporations are ethically responsible and believe strongly in global corporate citizenship, many other corporations use this platform to primarily gain profits in emerging markets.  Therefore, I believe that e-Inclusion does lead to marketization of the world’s poor.

I may be more sensitive to these issues because I teach New Canadians, and many of my students have worked for multinational corporations in Mexico, India and China, etc.  I have heard both positive and negative stories of how they were treated while working for such corporations.  Because of my experiences, I am more aware of my consumption patterns.  I will not purchase products from corporations if they are rumored to engage in unethical and immoral business practices.  The knowledge I have obtained this week will not greatly affect my teaching practices, but it will affect my consumption behaviors.

References:

Jenkins, R.  (2005).  Globalization, corporate social responsibility and poverty.  International Affairs, 81(3), 525-540.

Kirkpatrick, D.  (2001, May 2).  Great leap forward:  Looking for profits in poverty.  Fortune, 25.

Landrum, N.  (2007).  Advancing the “Base of the pyramid” debate.  Strategic Management Review, 1(1), 1-12.

Matten, D., & Crane, A.  (2005).  Corporate citizenship:  Towards an extended theoretical view.  California Management Review, 40(2), 8-17.

Schwittay, A.  (2012).  Incorporated citizens:  multinational high-tech companies and the bop.  Information technologies & international development, 8(1), 43-56.

Smith, C. W.  (2002).  Digital corporate citizenship:  The business response to the digital divide.  Indianapolis, IN:  The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

Advertisements

Week 3 Blog: Time Constraints! Are educators given the time needed to develop and adapt lessons for face-to-face and online teaching?

From this week’s readings, websites and voice threads, I have realized how much time is involved in modifying lesson plans for online learning platforms.  Lessons that were originally designed for traditional face-to-face classrooms need to be modified to put online.  For example, in the voice-threaded discussion this week, Chris Mertens, a teacher at Sundre High School in Sundre, Alberta, found that he needed to digitalize his entire Math 31 course to upload to Moodle.  This included lectures, assignments, quizzes and tests, etc.  He also found that he had to adjust his delivery to meet the needs of a video conferencing audience.  When adding recorded comments to the voice thread discussion, I realized I initially felt uncomfortable with my voice and my performance, but I soon gained confidence having my voice recorded and began to enjoy the experience with time.  As many researchers have acknowledged, much teaching and study time is required for educators to be successful in online delivery (Richards and Ridley, 1997; Warschauer, 1998; Well, 2000; Davidson-Shivers, Tanner and Muilenburg, 2000).

Even though some lesson components need to be modified for online delivery, other parts remain the same.  Whether an instructor is teaching in f-to-f environments or online, activities should be varied to meet the needs of diverse learners.  Educators need time to develop these diverse learning activities.  Furthermore, teachers must monitor students’ progresses whether the class is conducted f-to-f or online.  One advantage of using cyber asynchronous teaching platforms is the enhanced ability to track and keep records of students’ learning outcomes (Tanimoto et al., 2002; Shi et al., 2006; Hew et al., 2010).  Such records allow students to review their learning activities, and increase reviewing time and reflective abilities leading to higher order learning including analysis and evaluation (Newman et al., 1997).  Technology minimizes the time teachers require to monitor students’ learning progresses.

Regardless of the teaching environment, educators require time to create and adapt lessons in both f-to-f and online platforms.  Teachers need time to also develop scaffolding exercises to promote and support long-term retention and self-directed learning (Rourke, 2010).  Time is the secret ingredient that educators need to practice good teaching principles including the development of diverse, engaging lessons that are supported by appropriate scaffolding exercises and are transferable between face-to-face and online learning environments.

I continue to improve my comfort level with technology, and I am learning to implement it appropriately into curriculum rather than using it to lead teaching.  I have spent much time adapting to teaching with technology, and I predict more time will be required for me to develop my skills.  For pedagogy to lead technology, educators need time to develop skills in lesson design and transferability.  Are educators being given the time they need?

References:

Davidson-Shivers, G., Tanner, E., and Muilenburg, L. (2000).  Online discussion:  How do students participate?  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, L.A.

Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ng, C. S. L.  (2010).  Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion:  A review of the research and empirical exploration.  Instructional Science, 38(6), 571-606.

Newman, D. R., Johnson, C., Webb, B. & Cochrane, C.  (1997).  Evaluating the quality of learning in computer supported cooperative learning.  Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(6), 484-495.

Richards, C. N., and Ridley, D. R., (1997).  Factors affecting college students’ persistence in on-line computer-managed instruction.  College Student Journal, 490-495.

Rourke, A., & Coleman, K.  (2010).  E-learning in crisis:  should not the pedagogy lead the technology?  Journal Of Education Research, 4(3), 265-282.

Shi, S., Mishra, P., Bonk, C. J., Tan, S. & Zhao, Y.  (2006).  Thread theory:  A framework applied to content analysis of synchronous computer mediated communication data.  Retrieved March 22, 2011, from http://punya.educ.msu.edu/publications/submitted/thread_theory.pdf.

Tanimoto, S., Carlson, A., Husted, J., Hunt, E., Larsson, J., Madigan, D., & Minstrell, J.  (2002).  Text forum features for small group discussions with facet-based pedagogy.  In G. Stahl (Ed.), CSCL’02 Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning:  Foundations for a CSCL Community (pp.554-555).  Mahwah, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.

Warschauer, M.  (1998).  Online learning in sociocultural context.  Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29(1), 68-88.

Well, J. G.  (2000).  Effects of on-line computer-mediated communication course, prior computer experience and Internet knowledge, and learning styles on students’ Internet attitudes:  Computer-mediated technologies and new educational challenges.  Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 37(3), 22-53.

Is the Canadian Copyright Act silencing marginalized groups?

Many aspects of history have been told from the perspective of dominant groups.  Marginalized groups, such as women and minorities, have not always had a voice in our textbooks or in literature.  For these groups, re-writing of “…significant texts is a powerful tool of criticism and empowerment” (Derecho, 2006, p. 61).  Such re-writes “…expose, challenge, and correct stereotypes found in the original work” (Reynolds, 2010, p. 37).  Society needs to develop a stronger understanding of historical facts, from all perspectives; thus, re-writing of text is essential.  However, the Canadian Copyright Act may be prohibiting such re-writes and inadvertently silencing marginalized groups (Reynolds, 2010).

A relevant question is: do re-writes silence marginalized groups?  Another question is whether these re-writes are protected under the fair dealing provision of the Copyright Act?  These questions are up for debate, and amendments to the Canadian Copyright Act, Bill C-32, has been proposed as a way of “…achieving a more equitable balance” between the rights of original authors and users-especially marginalized users (Reynolds, 2010, p. 38).

From the readings this week, I have come to realize that the Canadian Copyright Act’s main purpose it not to stunt the flow of ideas but rather to encourage innovation, especially in the arts and sciences, by protecting the original author’s intellectual property (Nenych, 2011).  Prior to this class, I viewed copyright laws from a monetary point of view, as well as from a prohibitive point of view. The Act is meant to protect the original author’s work, reputation, and moral rights.  Furthermore, the Act protects the original author’s right to not have his/her work “distorted, mutilated or otherwise modified” (Reynolds, 2010, p. 49).  The Act doesn’t prohibit the re-writing of texts that are no longer copyrighted, nor does it prohibit re-writes when the courts have deemed that the texts are used for certain “fair” purposes as long as re-writes give credit to the original author(s) by sourcing the work.  Since marginalized groups are able to re-write texts under the fair dealing provision of the Copyright Act, I now don’t feel that marginalized groups face possible silencing from the Canadian Copyright Act (CMEC, 2012)

After obtaining a deeper understanding of copyright legislation, I now feel more comfortable using copyrighted material in my classroom.  I also feel that I am in a better position to help my students understand how to use and source copyrighted images, music and text, etc.  In future classes, I will take time to teach ‘mini’ lessons on copyright rules, teach my students how to search for Creative Commons material, as well as how to reference original author’s work.

References:

CMEC (2012).  Copyright matters.  Retrieved from http://www.cmec.ca/139/Programs-and-Initiatives/Copyright/Overview/index.html.

Derecho, A.  (2006).  “Archontic Literature:  A Definition, a History, and Several Theories of Fan Fiction,” in Karen Hellekson & Kristina Busse, eds., Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet (Jefferson, N.C.:  McFarland, 2006) 61 at 61.

Nenych, L. A.  (2011).  Managing the legal risk of high-tech classrooms.  Contemporary Issues In Education Research, 4(3), 1-7.

Reynolds, G.  (2010).  The impact of the Canadian copyright act on the voices of marginalized groups.  Alberta Law Review, 48(1), 35-53.

EDER Digital Citizenship: Blog 1-What is digital citizenship?

While in Maui, I have observed many examples of people practicing “Aloha”.  What does this mean?  Here in Hawaii, “Aloha” can mean many things.  At first, I thought that it only meant “hello or goodbye”; however, the saying “practice Aloha” appears on license plates and on signage everywhere.

In the Hawaiian language, “Aloha” means affection, peace, compassion and mercy.  Then in the 19th Century, English settlers started using it to refer to “hello or goodbye”.  The Hawaiian people now use this word to mean many things.

What I have observed is that the Hawaiians have a deep respect for each other, and they take an active role in helping to raise their children and in building relationships within their communities.  Although I haven’t visited a school here to witness how they manage digital media or whether they teach digital citizenship, I have been told that the Hawaiians practice “Aloha” in almost everything that they do.  They take this responsibility earnestly, so I feel that digital citizenship occurs even if they do not define it as such.  Hollandsworth et al. (2011) claims that “…it takes a village” to help students become better citizens, and the Hawaiians are taking vital steps to ensure their children learn their traditional culture of practicing “Aloha”.

Ohler (2011) refers to digital citizenship teaching as being part of any other character education programs.  Thus, according to this definition, the practice of “Aloha” is one aspect of digital citizenship.  Such good teaching practices at home, in communities and in schools build healthy, participatory societies that can function in the 21st Century.

Through my observations of how the Hawaiian people practice “Aloha” and through the readings for this week, I have expanded my understanding of digital citizenship to include more than being respectful of others.  I have learned that digital citizenship includes digital law, rights and responsibilities, access for everyone, communication, etiquette and much more.  I look forward to developing my understanding of digital citizenship so that I can improve my teaching practice.

Resources:

Hollandsworth, R., Dowdy, L., & Donovan, J.  (2011).  Digital Citizenship in K-12:  It Takes a Village.  Techtrends:  Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 55(4), 37-47.

Ohler, J.  (2011).  Digital Citizenship Means Character Education for the Digital Age.  Kappa Delta Pi Record, 48(1),  25-27.

Big Rocks Blog: Pivotal Moments: So empowering that time took still….

Pivotal Moment #1:  Technology-how it has changed teaching & learning.

After reviewing my previous blogs, what resonated with me the most is how technology has changed the teaching and learning processes.  Teachers now design lessons differently by thinking about how to better use and implement technology into curriculum through the development of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK).  Furthermore, learners now have many choices from E-intensive settings, face-to-face learning environments to blended learning options.  Both teachers and learners are constantly exposed to technology.

However, does this influx of technology increase student literacy rates?  The New Media Consortium (2005) defines twenty-first century literacy as “the set of abilities and skills where aural, visual, and digital literacy overlap…” (p.8).  Literacy must also include traditional literacies of reading and writing as well as new media literacy of developing social skills if students are to work collaboratively in a global, interconnected society (Jenkins, 2006).  Research has shown that students’ ability to use technology has not necessarily increased students’ knowledge and capability to use digital tools effectively.  As the Young Canadians in a Wired World (YCWW) research project (2012) demonstrated, many teachers felt that their students enjoyed engaging with networked media, but that this access to technology did not make their students better learners.   One instructor from the Atlantic stated “They know how to use Facebook or YouTube, those kinds of spaces…I think a lot of students know how to chat, how to text, but they don’t know how to use the learning experience”(Steeves, 2012).

Learners are exposed to vast amounts of information on the Internet, and most students take what they find online as “given”.  Therefore, educators need to help learners to think critically about online content if students/teachers are to maximize the benefits of digital literacy.   Digital responsibility and ethics when using online sources is another concept that has been introduced as a result of this influx in technology.  Learners need to be aware of the negative consequences of recording peoples’ conversations or taking pictures of others and putting it on YouTube without permission.  These actions destroy the sense of community and trust that needs to occur in classrooms if learning is to transpire.  After taking this course, I am now more aware of the benefits and the pitfalls of using digital resources in my classroom.

This means that educators need to assess their teaching practice to determine ‘how’ they can better use and manage technology to teach competencies in a diverse skill set including: media literacy, technological literacy, critical thinking/problem-solving, communication, collaboration, leadership, social awareness, ethical responsibility, accountability and more (Standards for the 21st Century Learner, 2007).

Pivotal Moment #2:  The Need for Teacher Reflection

Another key moment for me was when I reviewed my teaching processes.  This review allowed me to reflect on how I can better use and manage digital resources, improve self-efficacy, technology implementation, and the creation of authentic activities to enhance learning opportunities.

I have learned to first assess my students’ abilities and interests before designing activities to ensure that my students are intrinsically motivated.  I have encouraged students to build communities of inquiry so that information sharing and experiences perpetuate. Furthermore, I realize that students need to be put in control of their learning.  They need to manipulate information and ideas in ways that transform meaning through problem solving.  They also need more time to reflect on their learning processes, as well as on specific topics to encourage higher-order thinking skills.  I now have a better understanding that covering less material in a course, but making sure that the components of the program are well connected and extended to real-world applications constitutes good teaching practices.

Pivotal Moment #3:  The Need to Design Authentic Learning & TPACK

I wish to improve my lesson planning and the quality of my teaching by learning how to better design authentic learning activities.  I have learned that connectivism and social constructivism can be used by educators to create authentic, inquiry-based projects.  Social constructivism supports “learning by design” since educators design technological tools to solve authentic problems.  Teachers become the designers of technology and learn along side their students.  Teachers need to put aside their egos; something that many educators fear because they may lose control of their classroom.  Consequently, this type of teaching takes much confidence and classroom management skills.  Connectivism also supports authentic learning because students connect with their peers through classroom or online discussions, through large or small group activities, or through correspondence with other students around the world.  The Internet has made these interactions possible, which has forever changed teaching and learning environments.

Investigating the many concepts presented this term has also aided in my TPACK development.  TPACK is the intersection of seven interwoven and interdependent sections of teachers’ knowledge (Harris & Hofer, 2009).  I learned that a pedagogically sound method of developing TPACK is to start the process with content-based planning so that technology is integrated into curriculum in a manner that is not technocentric (Papert, 1987).  Once these instructional decisions have been made, I can focus on selecting, organizing, and sequencing activity-based tasks.  Then choosing the best technology to use from the list of taxonomies given in the Harris and Hofer article comes naturally.  The taxonomies have been designed to best serve learning goals and to meet school constraints.  I look forward to learning more about how to use these taxonomies in my TPACK development.

I am moving towards the sweet spot in TPACK development.  From the course concepts, I have noticed that my process has been this development.  I want to incorporate technology into my lesson planning since it is the future, but I want to do it in an authentic and appropriate way.  I also want my lessons to spark real-world, relevant learning, which is a requirement for authentic teaching.  I have spent the last two years learning how to better create this synergy in my lesson planning.

Through awareness of how technology changes teaching and learning, and through reflection and the development of TPACK, I have greatly improved my teaching abilities.  By reflecting on my own teaching processes, I am now more adaptive and flexible (Clark & Peterson, 1986).

References:

Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L., (1986).  Teachers’ thought processes.  In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.).  Handbook of research on teaching.  New York:  MacMillan.

Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009).  Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for

curriculum-based TPACK development.  In C.D. Maddux, (Ed.).  Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2009 (pp. 99-108).  Chesapeake, VA:  Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education (SITE).

Jenkins, H. (2006).  Confronting the challenges of participatory culture:  Media education for the 21st Century.  John D. and Catherine T.  MacArthur Foundation.  Retrieved from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF

New Media Consortium (2005).  A Global Imperative:  The Report of the 21st Century Literacy Summit.

Papert, S. (1987).  A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future.  Retrieved November 16, 2012, from http://www.papert.org/articles/ACritiqueofTechnocentrism.html

Standards for the 21st Century Learner (2007).  Retrieved March 29, 2010 from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/guidelinestandards/learningstandards/standards/cfm

Steeves, V. (2012).  Young Canadians in a Wired World, Phase 3:  Teacher’s Perspective.  Retrieved from:  http://mediasmarts.ca/sites/default/files/pdfs/publication-report/full/YCWWIII-Teachers-Perspectives.pdf

EDER 679-Blog #4: Is “Learning by Design” the answer to “how” teachers develop authentic, inquiry-based learning opportunities?

Much research has focused on “what” educators need to know to create meaningful curriculum and classroom environments that integrate content, pedagogical and technological knowledge (TPACK).  However, teachers need to know ‘how’ to better implement technology into classrooms.  They also need to become more proficient in using technology, but focus should not be on learning specific software because this knowledge is too specific and quickly becomes outdated (Mishra & Koehler, in press).

Mishra & Koehler, (in press), argue that traditional methods of training teachers using workshops and courses are ineffective and are “…ill-suited to produce the “deep understanding” that can insulate teachers from the changes brought on by rapidly changing technology”.  Training programs using these approaches leads to teachers becoming consumers of technology; they don’t develop an understanding of how to build relationships with technology.  Teachers need to be committed to professional development, which includes becoming more adaptable to technology, but training programs need to focus more on proper implementation.  One method of learning and implementing technology that supports the development of TPACK is through “learning by design” (Mishra & Koehler, in press).

“Learning by design” involves teachers designing technological tools to solve an authentic problem.  Through this process, teachers understand technology along side their students, which allows educators to experience the benefits and pitfalls of the technology for themselves.  Teachers become designers of technology through active participation supporting social constructivism and sustainable inquiry projects.

An example of how I have used “learning by design” in my teaching at Bredin is through the development of a student website.  When teaching the Workplace Communication Class for the BIM (building information modeling) program, I soon realized that many students preferred to work on assignments in isolation.  I knew that these students lacked the necessary Essential Skills such as working with others and oral communication to be successful in the Canadian marketplace.  Often engineers don’t excel in these ‘soft’ skills, but foreign trained engineers from certain countries seem to lack these skills even more so.  I wanted to build a community of inquiry through collaboration and relationship building.  I also wanted a resource for students to access outside of the classroom.  Thus, I designed a website for my students-(www.bimcommunication.webs.com).

I posted questions in the discussion board and encouraged students to respond, and I linked resources to the website to support learning outside of the face-to-face classroom.   I also downloaded pictures, with students’ permission, from school fieldtrips to help develop relationships and mentoring.  Then I asked students to work in teams to create their own websites showcasing learning from the BIM program.  Instructors in the program including the AutoCAD, Revit, cultural awareness, pronunciation and employment readiness teachers, gave students class time to work on the websites and encouraged students to include artifacts from their classes on the sites.

Through the design of my website, I was able to anticipate challenges students may have with the technology.  I also knew how long such a project would take since it took me approximately 20 hours to create my website.  This was my first attempt at “learning by design”, and even though it was time intensive, I can now use this site for future classes.  I believe that “learning by design” sparks authentic, inquiry-based instruction where students realize that learning is messy and ill structured, so they need to develop strategies to solve problems.  I hope to develop more tools to use in my teaching through “learning by design”, which will further my TPACK development.

References:

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (in press).  Not “what” but “how”:  Becoming design-wise about educational technology.  To appear in Zhao, Y. (Ed.). What do teachers need to know.  Educational Technology Publications.  Retrieved from: http://mkoehler.educ.msu.edu/OtherPages/Koehler_Pubs/MISHRA_KOEHLER.pdf

Does “Activity Types” for TPACK Development Allow for Authentic Learning?-EDER 679-Blog #3

The practice of using curriculum-specific, technology-enhanced learning activity types as the building blocks for instructional planning has been suggested as a way to develop TPACK (Harris & Hofer, 2009).  Technological pedagogical content knowledge is the intersection of seven interwoven and interdependent sections of teachers’ knowledge (Harris & Hofer, 2009).  Instructors are encouraged to first design curriculum keeping in mind learning outcomes, pedagogical decisions that best suit learners, the appropriate sequencing of activity types and assessment strategies.  Does this approach to lesson planning aid in TPACK development and authentic learning opportunities for students?

By starting with content-based planning, the integration of educational technologies become more authentic and not technocentric ( Papert, 1987).  Once these instructional decisions have been made, educators can focus on selecting, organizing, and sequencing activity-based tasks.  Then choosing technologies to use that best serve learning goals and meet school constraints can be determined.

I found the learning activity type taxonomies given in the Harris and Hofer article to be extremely helpful in developing authentic lessons where technology enhances learning rather than it becoming the focus of the lesson.  I also found that technologies such as Word, PowerPoint, Wikispaces, Audacity, Inspiration, Excel, Google Docs, VoiceThread, etc.  can be duplicated at different stages of the planning.  This reinforces my notion that “less is more”.  I have always believed that educators don’t have to be technology experts to effectively integrate technology into curriculum.

I have used a similar method when learning to teach English to Newcomers to Canada.  The series “Teaching Techniques in English as a Second Language” by Oxford University Press focuses on teaching new instructors learning activities for the language classroom.  Some of the books include:  techniques in teaching vocabulary, writing, grammar, reading, listening, and speaking.  The books also include sample lessons so new instructors can visualize how learning activities can be incorporated into larger lessons-similar to how Harris & Hofer use activity types as building blocks to form lesson plans, projects and units.  The idea of using activity-based building blocks to design connected lessons is not new.  When viewing languages, collocations or groups of words build to represent ideas and communication.  It is interesting how old ideas become new again.

The challenge of using “activity types” is to ensure that curriculum-based learning goals are met, that activity types are combined in a way that addresses more curriculum standards simultaneously and that these activity types flow smoothly.  Students complete activity types through out the lesson, but educators need to make sure that these activity types are smoothly connected and build on each other.  Otherwise, these tasks can lead to “activitymania” where tasks are disconnected and do not address curriculum outcomes.  When this occurs, students are confused about what the tasks represent and how they build to concrete learning outcomes.

I have used many of the technologies listed in the Harris and Hofer article successfully in my practice.  When adding technologies to my learning activities, I try to implement technologies that students are familiar with so that learning the technology isn’t the focus of my lesson.  I will continue to follow this strategy, but I will increase my use of possible technologies to expand my TPACK development.

Resources:

Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009).  Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-based TPACK development.  In C.D. Maddux, (Ed.).  Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2009 (pp. 99-108).  Chesapeake, VA:  Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education (SITE).

Papert, S. (1987).  A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future.  Retrieved November 16, 2012, from http://www.papert.org/articles/ACritiqueofTechnocentrism.html