Module 3 Week 2: TEL and Teaching

Dillenbourg's 'orchestration' metaphor - is it useful / helpful or not?

No, conducting would be much better. Orchestration implies 'pre-preparation' and does not convey the sense of 'real-time' that Dillenbourg describes.

Does the metaphor help me think differently about how technology supports teachers?

The metaphor, and subsequent discussion by TEL researchers, makes me wonder whether trying to arrive at some form of unified theory for using TEL in the classroom is useful, or even achievable. While there is clearly value in knowing how certain types of pedagogic activity support certain types of thinking as per Bloom's taxonomy, the diversity between disciplines, even at the level of compulsory education, means that any investment in a specific type of TEL tool is unlikely to be transferable between different classrooms (e.g. a Maths class and an English class), and as such will be obsolete after a few years.

Perhaps there is an argument that there is greater value in using case studies to enhance teaching practice with TEL. For example, a teacher reading well-written case study describing a teaching activity involving TEL will be able to decide if and how the activity could be adapted for use in their own teaching. If the underlying pedagogical principles are made clear the teacher will be able to see how the activity supports learning, the amount and type of preparation required, what the teacher needs to do in real-time during the class and the tech support they are likely to require. In view of both disciplinary differences and of the different approaches that teachers take in the classroom (even those from the same discipline), I'm unsure as to the generalisability of the concept of orchestration.

A recent video by marketeer and thought leader Seth Godin sets out what he believes the challenges to be for Higher Education in the early 21st century. He believes that school should be about teaching kids 1) how to solve interesting problems, and 2) how to lead. Although Dillenbourg's paper does not mention standardisation, it does make me worry about the danger of trying to arrive at a standardised approach to using TEL in the classroom. Applying Godin's logic to Dillenbourg's examples, one possible approach to using TEL in a classroom would be for the teacher to set the students a task and then ask them to make use of available technologies to find an answer. Although this might be somewhat chaotic, students would be thinking creatively in order to arrive at a solution rather than the teacher having to micro-manage every aspect of the learning activity. But maybe that's a recipe for disaster.

The response from Dimitriadis et al (2011) refers to the highly "routinized" use of tools by teachers in classrooms, but given the rate at which technology is advancing I'm not sure whether encouraging routinized use of anything is such a good idea.  Given the complexity of the variables involved in teaching (teacher's and students' technical ability, variation in subject matter and learning outcomes, availability and reliability of technology, availability of technical support etc) it is perhaps unreasonable to assume that any TEL activity is generalisable.

Am I being too pessimistic?

Do I think that Mishra & Koehler make the links between the 'learning technology by design' approach and TPCK sufficiently clear? Or not?

I felt that the examples provided in the Learning Technology By Design section of the paper provided a useful practical illustration of the TPCK framework in practice. Each example could be (and probably has been) written up as a separate case study - it was perhaps difficult to fully grasp the ways in which the the TPCK framework had been applied in the learning-technology-by-design approach.

But while I understand and agree with the authors' statement that the availability of a framework enables researchers to make inferences about where to 'predict the consequences of making changes in the situation', I didn't really grasp the idea of TPCK as a framework for research. This aspect of the paper would benefit from a clearer explanation.

Can my professional background provide concrete examples of how I might apply ideas, or prioritise thinking about some areas of learning theory?

After reading the Mishra & Koehler article I have realised that much of my professional work takes place at the intersection of Technology and Pedagogy, and that my knowledge is primarily Technological Pedagogical Knowledge. When I work with tutors to design learning activities, they are bringing the Content knowledge and together we enter the TPCK triad.



TEL is a community of researchers who have differing opinions and perspectives. Think about:

- How these researchers present their case

- How I position myself relative to the issues raised

And based on all the above, what problems might I want to investigate and what is the role of teachers' knowledge and technological support for teachers within these?

Think about the question I came up with in Module 5:

• To what extent should university teaching development programmes (such as the PGCert) embrace new forms of CMC when these are not necessarily permitted by institutional policies / in order to model 'good' practice with learning technology? This must be an issue even for universities such as Lancaster - should the EdRes course team restrict themselves to just using the institutional VLE rather than exploring perhaps more distributed approaches to online teaching and learning.

• The transmissive nature of many institutional VLEs is increasingly out of date in view of the growth of more 'social', conversational means of online communication. If university teacher training courses are to model 'good' practice, should they seek to be at the cutting edge of new technologies in order to prepare tutors adequately for teaching? Or, should they work within the confines of the technology that is provided by their institution?