The Technology-Enhanced Model: Enriching Pedagogy in Education

Polytechnic University of the Philippines

Graduate School

Sta. Mesa, Manila

The Technology-Enhanced Model: Enriching Pedagogy in Education

Prepared by:

Mr. Raymark D. Llagas

Master in Educational Management

major in Instructional Leadership

Submitted to:

Dr. Josefina U. Parentela

Professor

Education Models, Paradigms and Procedures

(MEM 651)

April 2014

Introduction

Technology offers tremendous promise for enhancing the academic experience. Educational technologies include not only the Internet, which provides access to university websites directly tied to courses as well as to resources around the world, but also innovations in recording, collaborating, and responding technologies that offer enhanced environments for scholarly interaction and intellectual pursuit. These technologies are valuable when they serve the larger educational goals of the university: to create active learners who not only master the content of their chosen fields, but also develop techniques and modes of critical thought that will enable them to be informed and discerning citizens and contributors to their professions.

Contemporary vision of technology integration focuses on technology as a tool to transform education. Hooper and Rieber (1995) present a model illustrating a developmental process that education may go through to take full advantage of the potential of technology. Field of education progress through the initial exposure to technology and basic technological skill acquisition, to occasional application of the skills learned, to integration of technology into instruction, and finally, to the change the beliefs and practice toward student-centered, constructivist learning. Hooper and Rieber (1995) believe that this process will continue as the educational system evolves and adapts to reflect the new understanding of how people learn. Similarly, Becker (2001) describes how technology integration, as a field, has progressed from focusing on computer skills and curriculum integration to using technology as a tool for educational reform. He maintains that “The final and critical piece may yet turn out to be educational’ philosophies of learning and teaching and whether it can be brought around to be supportive of constructivist applications of computer technology.” This vision is consistent with current theory and research on human learning (Brandsford, Pellegrino, & Donovan, 1999), and it is advocated as the best practice of technology integration (Becker, 1994; Dede, 1998). Notably, this view is reflected in the National Educational Technology Standards published by International Society for Technology in Education (2000).

However, current use of technology is still limited to the use of basic computer tools to support traditional approach of teaching (Ertmer, 2005). Some researchers’ vision of using technology is to facilitate constructivist, student-centered learning is still a distant and daunting goal (Sugar, 2002).

A variety of barriers exist that prevent teachers from using technology to its full potential. Ertmer (1999) categorizes the barriers to technology integration into two types: first-order and second-order barriers. First-order barriers include the lack of access to resources such as equipment, time, training, and support. Second-order barriers are typically rooted in teachers’ underlying beliefs about teaching and learning. First-order barriers are easier to be recognized and removed, whereas second-order barriers may require teachers to transform their beliefs in teaching and learning. Ertmer (2005) further argues that many of the conditions for technology integration already exist, and the final barrier toward technology integration is teachers’ beliefs.

The Technology-Based Education as a One of the Prime Innovation of Teaching and Learning

In technology--‐based education a number of initiatives by various players have received a great deal of attention and visibility. However, notwithstanding the innovation or the efforts being expended, many if not all of these attempts at developing technology--‐based educational environments suffer from a number of deficiencies. Online programs are typically completely separated from the live on--‐campus experience offered by the same college or university, leading to, either by design or de facto, what amounts to a two--‐tier system, with the live on--‐campus experience being considered as the superior of the two alternatives. In fact, the “online” option often does not lead to the same degree that individuals would earn at the same institution as residential students. These efforts also often lack direct human mentoring, and there is questionable quality of assessment of students.

E-Learning Quality

E-learning focuses on how learning organizations are structured and learn by analysis on the advantages which result in meeting the challenges of this globalized world, where the only constant is change. The ELQ model considers ten dimensions

              

These dimensions were identified through the analysis of policies, projects and working networks developed by several organizations, and also policies of governmental agencies and national organizations dedicated to quality assurance in higher education, especially in e-learning, published scientific articles. It is expected that the matrix will reflect a systemic view, where the different evaluation models are contextualized in the dimensions proposed by the ELQ and the links between the models of holistic view and those focusing on smaller elements of the process teaching and learning will

be pointed out.

The ELQ model includes dimensions of benchmarking and quality, recognized by national and international organizations, focusing on aspects such as leadership, organization, support, qualifications of personnel, resource allocation and degree of flexibility. It also reflects the dimensions identified in the work done, which focuses predominantly on the most basic aspects, namely the components of the structure of the virtual environment and the material / content. In each dimension, the ELQ model predicts 3-4 quality criteria, which serve as measures to deal with the problems and issues identified at the institutional level. The quality criteria are open and revolve around three issues: a) explanation of strategies; Placement of models for assessing the model ELQ b) implementation of a); c) evaluation and improvement of a) and b) [9].

In the matrix of the figure above, the ten dimensions present in the ELQ model are listed [9]. For each of these dimensions, we associate studies and theoretical models, which identify criteria and ways of operationalizing and assessment. This work seems useful and complementary to the ELQ model, since the presentation of different perspectives and theoretical positions helps to understand the state of the art, to select more carefully the indicators, being therefore a useful guide in defining the evaluation model. With this, we are not trying to defend an import and direct application of models, since the parameterization mechanisms vary according to each context [29], so each organization must look for its specific criteria and indicators that respond to questions of well-defined contexts [30]. However, we believe that a good theoretical support is essential so that each organization can build the tool to evaluate its importance.

Affecting Changes in Teachers’ Technology Beliefs

Although theories and models on teacher learning and belief changes abound in the literature, little research has investigated the effectiveness of the strategies designed to affect belief changes related to technology integration. Park and Ertmer (2007) examined the impact of problem-based learning (PBL) on teachers’ beliefs regarding technology use and on their intended teaching practice. Park and Ertmer (2007) argued that a PBL environment may initiate changes in teachers’ beliefs because this approach encourages problem solving, critical thinking, and decision-making.

Another related study focuses on the impact of a field experience program on teachers’ beliefs. This study was conducted in a pedagogical laboratory, which incorporated the three components important to affecting belief changes: experience, reflection, and support (Ma, Williams, Prejean, Lai, & Ford, 2008). The field experience program included three phases: teacher candidate preparation, laboratory experience, and reflection. The first phase was teacher candidate preparation. The primary goal of this phase was to provide teachers with content, pedagogical, and technological knowledge needed to facilitate technology-enhanced activities. Teachers viewed video case studies of student-centered learning classrooms and experienced how an expert teacher delivered a technology-integration model lesson. The second phase was laboratory experience. It aimed to offer personal experience to facilitate technology-enhanced, student-centered learning. Teachers took turns to facilitate activities, observed their peer’s facilitation practice, and collected video footage of their peers. They kept a reflective journal in phases two and three. The third phase was articulation and reflection. It was intended for teachers to reflect on their facilitation experience and at the same time to practice their technological skills in creating digital videos. After each facilitation experience, teachers met and discussed their experiences. Once the laboratory experiences were completed, they created a reflective video with a peer.

In a study of the pedagogical laboratory, researchers analyzed teachers’ reflective journals and interviews (Ma, Lai, Williams, Prejean, & Ford, 2008). The qualitative data indicated that the pedagogical laboratory experience was extremely valuable to teachers. It gave them a new understanding of and inspiration for teaching. Teachers realized how difficult, but also how exciting and rewarding teaching can be. The field experience challenged their beliefs of teaching and technology integration. For example, the demand for diverse types of knowledge and skills needed to facilitate student-centered, technology-enhanced lessons was overwhelming for some teachers. Some of them were frustrated in the student-centered environment where they did not feel having complete control. They also encountered other problems related to student-centered learning and technology integration such as technical issues, meeting diverse needs of learners, as well as handling group dynamics and power struggle. In the meantime, teachers began to appreciate the different strategies used in student-centered classrooms as compared to those in traditional classrooms. They started to allow students to choose their tasks and began to feel comfortable about learning from students. Most of them explicitly stated that they would incorporate student-centered learning activities into their future classrooms, although they were aware that it might take much more than one field experience or one semester for them to change their beliefs and to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for facilitating student-centered learning.

Conclusion

The new social demands and rapid technological changes require new ways of organizing the institutions. The learning organizations, with flexible structures and channels of communication, where there is a distribution of the power of decision-making through all levels, in which there is a valorization of systemic thinking, where everyone is able to understand the common goal and to collaborate, will have competitive advantages in a world of fast changes.

Much as educational enhanced instruction have flourished in a new environment by integrating the best of their online capabilities, it is our sense that by integrating the best of our educational experience through technology--‐based and residential experience we can offer a better experience that ultimately is superior to either an exclusively online or residential experience. This integrated environment, which offers flexibility to faculty and students, greater learning opportunities, and indeed changes the educational paradigm in a way that is sustainable in terms of scale and cost, will be richer and ultimately a more effective educational model.

REFERENCES

Brandsford, J. D., Pellegrino, J. W., & Donovan, S. (1999). How people Llearn: Bridging Research and Practice. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Becker, H. J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(3), 291.

Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61.

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39.

Ferreira, Sergio Andre and Andrade, Antonio. (2004). Systematic analysis of Quality Technology Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: An Organizational Perspective. Formatec Publishing. 2004. p. 432-433

Ma, Yuxin et. Al. (2008). Teachers’ Belief Changes in a Technology-Enhanced Pedagogical Laboratory. University of Louisiana at Lafayette. p. 13-15.

Popescu, Elvira. (2005). A Unified Learning Style Model for Technology-Enhanced Learning: What, Why and How?. University of Craiova.

Sugar, W. A. (2002). Applying human-centered design to technology integration. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19(1), 12-17.