special+contributions

copied this from the tickets :

ust a thought. I have been searching for the word since we started theorising that simply introducing the technology is not enough. Am I right to say that we are taking an "affective" approach to the problem of ICT uptake in schools? Judging by the research we have done, there are plenty of pedagogies and technical attempts at introducing to the technical and pedagogical possibilities of ICT in education. And we have concluded implictly that despite all these efforts the reality is that teachers are predominantly resistant. And we are treating the reasons for this resistance very seriously and take them into account into the planning of our innovation. ===    (follow-up: [| ↓ 9] ) 04/22/10 21:07:59 changed by Gilbert_Ng [| ¶]=== Oops... I just read Tina's contribution and she already listed the affective domain so that's great. ===    (follow-up: [| ↓ 11] ) 04/23/10 12:12:24 changed by Stephen_Moskal [| ¶]=== I think a really good point Gilbert. Yes we are accepting that teachers will be resistant but also very validly so. Its a case of understanding how much does technology add over and above the adoption of constructivist methods ? How does technology speed up the adoption of this pedagogy ? Your point is as I interpret it that by addressing this as a key issue and accepting their concerns as quite valid and then addressing them is a key aspect of our innovation. Other approaches just assume teachers should technology is 'great' or perhaps they have no choice but to use it ! So maybe to look at it another way, a key innovative idea/design of our solution is the 'non technical' aspect of it ! ===    (follow-up: [| ↓ 7] ) 04/23/10 12:17:08 changed by Stephen_Moskal [| ¶]=== I wanted to mention about how we as a team came to agreeing and evolving the adoption of 'voicethread' as actual example of specific technology we would use. the idea started small then as a group we grew it into a strong concept that was applied to the whole context of the innovation. We did this through conversation using voice in adobe connect. Its doubtful whether we would have came to the same strong conclusions and knowledge construction about this in the time we had if we used chat of did it through the google doc and/or tickets. So as far as the innovation process we developed a strong sense of what tool was best used in particular aspects in our design development.

04/23/10 12:19:35 changed by Stephen_Moskal [| ¶]
Another one is I thought we worked very well together at the beginning in determining how best we used the ticketing system and then seeking clarification from Peter. We were all new, hadn't worked together before. Again this worked best using the voice conference tool. ===    (in reply to: [| ↑ 5] ) 04/25/10 14:54:03 changed by Christina_Wilkinson [| ¶]=== Replying to [|Stephen_Moskal]: I totally agree with this Steve. It(Voicethread) was put forward as a possible starting point for teachers using our innovation and the detailed disc.ussion about how it allowed the teachers on the one hand to "learn about" a tool, by having hands on experience of it's funstions, starting with contributing comments and moving right through to self creation. On the otehr hand it was also a tool which we decided lent itself well to discussing the issues at hand in our "problem" ie how technology is used by learners, why and how it could be used in education and also allowing teachers to voice their opinions, including reticense, all the time using the technology. We explored it as a tool allowing images, text, documents, video, collaborative interaction, discussion - all in one tool. There was also the Team creation of a Voicethread, where those of us who were unfamiliar with the tool could experiment and those who were could comment and make suggestions. We modelled the constructivist approach to learning by discovering for ourselves, collaborating and discussing. This same approach was taken to otehr tools we explored as well. That much of our collaboartion happened through voice conferencing is also significant. It allowed us to quickly bounce of each other's ideas, add points, suggest ammendments and develop new directions for exploration. We were also able through this method to clarify points of research that we had been reading and from our whole course readings/sessions and how they applied to our innovation. This was a valuable part of how Team Delta opperated and developed our Innovation Document.

04/25/10 15:05:14 changed by Christina_Wilkinson [| ¶]
I also believe the development of our original problem and the discussions which lead to the refining of our problem definition were significant. We began as a group of people who had never met and very quickly developed the kernel of an idea which seemed to interest us all. From that point we all share experiences and thoughts, developed each other's thinking by challenging and expanding upon ideas. SPecfically the discussion of why teachers are resistant to the use of technology was a point of lengthy discusison - importantly becaus eit then allowed us to explore possible solutions. The first few sessions where we started to integrate ideas form teh radings about instructionism and constuctivism lead to real "aha" moments. We clarity of many teachers being "stuck" in instructionist models, because of their own educational experiences and their teacher training and their not wanting to be pushed out of that comfort zone formed the spring board for our innovation. Each Team member brought their own perspectives forom their own ares of professional experiences, contributing valuable insights. This was the pattern for much of our Innovation project work. We would start with kernels of ideas and build on them collaboratively.A real snowball effect! Quite envigoratinh at times as isead came togetehr. We met on average 2-3 times a week as a group through much of our work, which provided time for this. ===    (in reply to: [| ↑ 3] ; follow-up: [| ↓ 12] ) 04/25/10 15:10:41 changed by Christina_Wilkinson [| ¶]=== Replying to [|Gilbert_Ng]:

Oops... I just read Tina's contribution and she already listed the affective domain so that's great.

Really I think it was ROger's point if I remener correctly, but either way it is a key point in our innovation. I agree with you and STeve on this. We looked much further than just pushing the technology and forcing people to use it. We looked at WHY they were resistant, ways we could show them the potential of technology, ways of building confidence, and stringly linking it all with 21st concepts of 21st Century pedagogy. ANd as you have said, we made these pivotal points in our actual innovation.

04/25/10 17:35:14 changed by Christina_Wilkinson [| ¶]
One point that also leaps to mind for me, was the inclusion of a student "voice" as part of the process of our innovation.The divide between students and teachers on the use of technology is one which needs to be bridged, not just by up-skilling teachers in various tools and pieces of software, but by openning dialogue on the subject. ===    (in reply to: [| ↑ 4] ) 04/25/10 17:57:24 changed by Gilbert_Ng [| ¶]=== Replying to [|Stephen_Moskal]:
 * **description** changed.

I think a really good point Gilbert. Yes we are accepting that teachers will be resistant but also very validly so. Its a case of understanding how much does technology add over and above the adoption of constructivist methods ? How does technology speed up the adoption of this pedagogy ? Your point is as I interpret it that by addressing this as a key issue and accepting their concerns as quite valid and then addressing them is a key aspect of our innovation. Other approaches just assume teachers should technology is 'great' or perhaps they have no choice but to use it ! So maybe to look at it another way, a key innovative idea/design of our solution is the 'non technical' aspect of it !

===    (in reply to: [| ↑ 9] ) 04/25/10 17:59:36 changed by Gilbert_Ng [| ¶]=== Replying to [|Christina_Wilkinson]:
 * **description** changed.

Replying to [|Gilbert_Ng]:

Oops... I just read Tina's contribution and she already listed the affective domain so that's great.

Really I think it was ROger's point if I remener correctly, but either way it is a key point in our innovation. I agree with you and STeve on this. We looked much further than just pushing the technology and forcing people to use it. We looked at WHY they were resistant, ways we could show them the potential of technology, ways of building confidence, and stringly linking it all with 21st concepts of 21st Century pedagogy. ANd as you have said, we made these pivotal points in our actual innovation.

04/25/10 18:01:44 changed by Gilbert_Ng [| ¶]

 * **description** changed.

04/25/10 18:17:09 changed by Gilbert_Ng [| ¶]
Aaargh I messed up the reply system so I'm doing it this way =P @Tina Oops... sorry... kudos to Roger then...my attention has only recently been fully back onto my studies unfortunately =( so perhaps I missed out on what roger said initially... @Steve Thanks for the back up... Yeah, I think sometimes as practioners we forget what it's like for others. So many of the elearning courses assume people will, like you said, get it once the technology is introduce, which is not so in reality. So yeah if I were to package this program I would highlight the affective part. Perhaps that, more than anything else is our innovation for this task. ===    (follow-up: [| ↓ 17] ) 04/25/10 19:14:31 changed by Gilbert_Ng [| ¶]=== This may be a little late since the document is to be completed. But I've just read through some stuff on communities of practice for another unit so would just like to maybe think aloud here and see how it may apply to our innovation. Our innovation stands out because of our emphasis on the affective domain, i.e. seeking to change beliefs and attitudes. And one of the chief determiners of a person's beliefs and attitudes is his/her peers. So we should try to take advantage of informal learning processes as much as we can. To do that, Hessan (2006) has listed a few points. The points are: 1) Common purpose - e.g. teachers of a common subject 2) The right members - putting expert ICT users with novice ICT users might make the expert ICT users resentful because there will be little reciprocity. 3) Strong facilitation - someone has to be accountable for the value and vibrancy of the community. In a nutshell some people would have to "take charge". 4) Asynchronous design - participants can take their time to think it through before responding 5) Integration with formal training - prolonging the impact of a formal course. Even after the course is over, discussions of experiences and new readings etc. will sustain the schema shifts achieved during the course. This would enhance the probablity of succeeding in our ultimate goal, which is to replace resistant attitudes with embracing attitudes. Hessan,D., (2006) The case for learning communities in Rosenberg, M.,(2006). //Beyond e-learning: approaches and technologies to enhance organizational knowledge, learning and performance.// San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

04/25/10 20:04:52 changed by Christina_Wilkinson [| ¶]
I believe the diagram Roger adapted for us, providing an overview of our innovation process, was also significant. The process of our voice conferencing on the document was very helpful as we added to and modified it to reflect our process more precisely, was very useful. It also reinforces how important the entire process is for our innovation, integrating technology and pedagogy and keeping the learners (teachers!)and their needs at the centre of our innovation.

===    (in reply to: [| ↑ 15] ) 04/25/10 21:15:02 changed by Christina_Wilkinson [| ¶]=== Replying to [|Gilbert_Ng]: Gilbert, you make many valid points here which do support some of the features of our innovation,even if we have not overtyl mentioned them. 1) common purpose - while we have not said that teachers of the same subject would necessarily work together, there is certainly scope for this, both in carrying out projects and as part of the online network further down the path of our innovation. Putting their new knowledge into context this way is important. Ina ddition, you could certainly say that teachers have a common purpose in a very broad sense, in that they are working on thier technology skills and linking it to pedagogy. 2) We have certainly stated that mentors would be used, in addition to the consultants that come into the school. Those who are the early adopters are to work with the less advanced. 3) I agree that strong leadrship is essential in an online community. Teh consultants would be there to facilitate, as well as the mentors. This would indeed need to be explicit in our design statement. 4) With regard to ongoing training, I think teh focus of our innovation is very much on equipping teaches to become life long leaners in this field. Rechnology is by it's very nature an ever changing and expanding field, so this will be very important. Wuth metors and a network in place the ongoing support should be there.

04/26/10 11:01:12 changed by Stephen_Moskal [| ¶]
I fully agree with all the points by Tina and Gilbert above.Just to clarify it is also mentioned in our document that we would use formal Project Management methodology (eg. PMP or Prince2 as examples) as a core element as to how it would be taken on by the school - this would ensure the right structures in terms having accountability, focus, resourcing, objectives and value measurements in place. Intrinsic in this would be a a 'communities of practice' approach as the project would be very much multi-disciplinary. Gilberts point about mixing ICT savvy and non-savvy could be a problem, so initially small groups could be setup based on prior ICT knowledge - would be part of the 'learning needs assessment' phase - Steve