Module+4+Reflection


 * // Reflection Prompt Module 4 //** Reflect on your thinking surrounding your developing a philosophy of Instructional Technology use for learning and your understanding of 21st Century Teaching and Learning

In a perfect world, we learn everything we need to know, then embark to the world of teaching with a clear understanding of philosophy that is readily applied from Day 1. But more often the case, teachers must forge a philosophy in the midst of teaching, a philosophy that ebbs and flows with each generation of students' unique environments. When technology is added to the mix, a philosophy for Instructional Technology use demands that such philosophies must be fluid, to be able to adapt to changing demands and new ideas. But at the same time, philosophy is grounded upon long standing, pedagogical truths. Technology can create new pedagogies, but it is important not to abandon the tried-and-true methods in the process.

My thinking that surrounds developing a philosophy of Instructional Technology is similar to this fluid state. Now that I have a clearer understanding of the NETS standards (Student Learning & Creativity, Digital-Age Learning Experiences, etc.) and TPACK framework (blending technology use with content and pedagogy), every teaching or facilitative task I do is viewed in a different light. Not only do I view tasks differently, but I attempt to address them with approaches that align to some of these standards and framework. In other words, it breathes new life into teaching and learning where I once thought had become mundane. To be honest, with the wide range and depth of NETS standards, I am still swimming in a sea that is too large for me to comprehend it all. But the more standards I can fit into my work, the more confidence that builds so that I can apply it with finer granularity in future applications.



As I mentioned in my discussion post earlier this week, I have two projects at the college where I work that will help form a philosophy and apply some 21st century technologies. The first project, explained briefly here, involves developing a departmental support wiki to improve communication, collaboration, and disseminate knowledge among my colleagues. It is more than mastering and creating wiki technology, however. As a facilitator, I am also tasked with using this tool to grow professionally with its use, model and promote it, inspire learning in others, and most importantly, create a learning community. Before knowing the standards, I would simply create the wiki and show others how to use it, hoping that it would naturally "fit" for them. Now I know there is a lot more involvement to a successful implementation of technology.

Another project that I am excited about is my new involvement in a "Continuous Improvement" committee that focuses on providing workshops, training seminars, and other learning modules for faculty/staff development. At first, I dreaded this involvement, not knowing how I could contribute. But now I realize this committee will be a springboard into testing and applying all sorts of NETS standards and frameworks. After our first meeting, I helped our group of six divide into a "content group" and "technology and methods group". The content folks would decide what needs to be taught, while the other group would find the best ways to teach the material. While I would primarily be part of the latter group, it is critical for me to bridge the groups (as indicated by TPACK) to connect content with technology & methods. It is an exciting, real application of what I am learning!

However, both of these projects fill my head with questions (and sometimes doubt). I wonder which is the best way, for example, to implement and present the wiki, to involve my colleagues in its design and use, to spark them into them using, learning, and teaching it to others? So many times in my department, my boss and I would have worthy ideas of improving productivity through technology, but my co-workers do not adopt it. Therefore, many hours of hard work go down the drain. One thing I learned from NETS Standard 3 is the promotion of technology that students can relate to. Since my co-workers are familiar with and use wiki technology in their personal lives, my introduction of wikis into our work environment might become a familiar, welcome addition to their work routine. Instead of pushing foreign technology on them, use technology they already know and embrace.

Similarly, I wonder how I can apply various NETS standards and the TPACK framework to the workshop and seminar training efforts of the committee. There are so many standards and conditions, making it difficult to recognize and apply the proper ones for each step in the course design process. Our committee can definitely benefit from combining learning experiences with 21st century technology and related pedagogies, as previous trainings were poorly attended. I hope to see marked improvement in the committee's effectiveness; I am just unsure how it will all pan-out as I continue to learn about technology standards.

I intend to clear some of this confusion using the assignments from this class. For instance, the field experience projects require proof of applicability from each of the NETS standards. I can attempt to fit the various stages of training design, delivery and assessment into the NETS standards, using real-world situations for each standard. The term paper will also build confidence as it is will help define my personal philosophy of Instructional Technology. Finding some way to ingrain the NETS standards in my head would help, though I am not quite there yet. Still, I have some exciting times coming up in the months ahead!