Articulate a purpose for technology leadership that connects learners’ needs in society to critical and emancipatory forms of technology leadership.
Key Tasks and Reflections
Updated Week 7 & 8 of Learning Log
Below chart pasted from Blackboard as requested.
1. Process – Watched van Oostveen’s resources on PBL
Type of Process – Individual
Reflection – Copied the 7 steps of PBL as an initial framework of our PBL process.
2. Process – Our first step was to create a shared Google document as platform for our ideas, notes and progression of thoughts and ideas
Type of Process – Group/ synchronous
Reflection – This was an excellent time to share and bond over our individual perspectives and experiences. We also shared our “norms” for communication and contributed our next meeting times and email addresses. We decided that the Google Doc would a good resource to share the ideas and research as informal notes. Perhaps the use of commenting would have allowed individuals outside of the group to make sense of it but perhaps that is adding too much structure to the “messiness” of the PBL model.
3. Type of Process – Individual
Process – Read the Connected Learning article
Reflection – We all read and analyzed the article as it had lots of depth and many interesting ideas. Wish we had read and analyze this article during class time. (i.e. in breakouts)
4. Type of Process – Group/synchronous
Process – Read and Analyze problem
Reflection – We looked for common or shared experiences and all saw the benefits and opportunities of the connected learning model. As an initial perspective and attempt to read and define the problem, we became collectively interested in ways to connect and prepare educators, educated in the 20th Century, to support learners in the 21st century.
5. Type of Process – Group/synchronously
Process – Determine what is the problem and definition
Reflection – First attempt to frame the question. Interested in how connected learning could be facilitated by a 1:1 initiative. Could we use “Connected Learning” as a rationale for a 1:1 –program in a middle school?
6. Type of Process – Group/ asynchronously
Process – Defining prior knowledge
Reflection – Had difficulty getting everyone together syncronously for this stage but worked asyncronously on the Google Doc at this stage. – –
Individual 3. Brainstorming “blue sky thinking” Explored this video individually. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpQCEgEfRyc
7. Type of Process – Group
Process – Arrange into a clear structure
Reflection – Divided our individual research into 4 distinct parts. This structure would follow into our presentation elements. (In hindsight, we should have highlighted that each of us should share 1 key part rather than try to share ALL research!) Decided to use Prezi for our research and presentation. This framework would allow us to change perspective and detail. (i.e. sometimes discuss fine details and other times take a wider perspective. At this point, we began preparing a framework for our presentation and focused away from a collaborative Google Doc to collaboration Prezi. The Prezi software allowed “live” collaboration which was helpful for seeing each others ideas take shape.
8. Type of Process – Group
Process – potential knowledge gaps and next steps learning goals
Reflection – We realized we needed some research into 1:1 implementation and Marc found a helpful research study which became a big part of our research and findings. However, we still were not sure about our progress and how we were doing? We reached to the professor for some feedback.
9. Type of Process – Individual
Process – Individual Research
Reflection -As our research progressed, we began to prepare a framework for our eventual presentation and focused away from a collaborative Google Doc to a collaborative Prezi. The Prezi software allowed “live” collaboration which was helpful for seeing each others ideas take shape.
10. Type of Process – Group/synchronously
Process – group discussion: discuss findings and share new info
Reflection -As our deadline approached, parts of presentation and research were completed and considered at various times. This was problematic as this step felt very rushed and ultimately, compromised the clarity of our presentation. (In hindsight, our presentation was too bloated and we subsequently we ran out of time.) Probably, a few more meetings in this stage would have helped us edit, refine and have increasing continuity. Overall, the process of PBL is quite messy and given its structure a flexible deadline (not always possible in a course but perhaps feasible in an research or professional setting) would have aided our goal to research and share our problem of training educators to help mentor middle school students in a connected learning in a 1:1 environment. In short, I found the PBL model interesting but some more time might have helped our presentation. Overall, the messiness and uncertainly made for an uneasy experience (felt quite discouraged with much in the way of help and support throughout 😦 ) but there were some new learnings that I found in the presentations. (i.e. Google Helpouts)
Sorry this chart was not displaying properly so this was the best version I could make without abandoning my theme.
Part 2. Comment on a key aspect of learning through online interactions in this course using Anderson’s (2008) model of e-learning interactions as presented in diagram 2.4 http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/ch2.html
Having resources available and accessible online (student-content) has allowed me to read, learn and explore the educational materials in a variety of times, ways, times and places. The anytime, anyplace and any size (i.e. 10 min. to an one hour +) aspect of this online course has allowed me to engage with material at a quiet moment(?!) amid a variety of professional and personal commitments. In practical terms, I was easily able to download the articles and important documents through a cloud based storage app (Dropbox) and save them offline through my iPad for easy access. I might also access on my computer if needed or even my smartphone. Having a clear roadmap and the material available beforehand allowed me the opportunity to prepare my schedule accordingly to complete reading tasks in a timely manner.
In addition, the opportunity to leverage the web for research (i.e. scholarly resources like Google Scholar or online university databases), annotative evidence (blogs and other social media) and multi-media materials (YouTube and other sources) have been critical resources for knowledge building and further learning opportunities. Furthermore, the potential to connect (student-student) both internally (fellow students) and externally (my PLN) is also a worthy next step and vital for collaboration, idea sharing, discussion, debate and other learning. Finally, active participation through breakout groups, whole classes tasks in adobe connect (i.e. whiteboard) or leading as a discussant allowed me to explore these new ideas through a frank and cordial exchange of ideas and perspectives. My learning style is an active one and I learn best by participation. So far the use of chat, note-taking, reading, discussions and at times social media has allowed me to maintain “flow” while engaging the materials in a synchronously during our regular class time or asynchronously anytime. (All this possible from my rec room in my pajamas (off camera of course) 🙂 Without this online setting, I doubt I would have the opportunity with my work and personal commitments to participate in this course.