Category: discussion

The Importance of an Adaptable Mind

On By Margaret SimkinIn 23 dig things, Collaborating, discussion, education, knowledge networks, learning, peer learning, queries, Reflection, Thing 11 Comment

This clip was set for viewing as one of the first tasks in CSU’s 23 digital things challenge, which I stared this morning.

It is a beautifully created visual and auditory stimulation of what is takes to make our world a better place.

The list of vital skills for our modern world contains five qualities that machines can never have:

  1. Curiousity
  2. Creativity – in the sense of liberating human energy -based on Howard Gardner
  3. Initiative
  4. Multi-disciplinary thinking – not multi-tasking but multi-asking
  5. Empathy

It left me with the question: What human skills can I offer the world?

References

Shlain, T., Steele, S., Goldberg, K. (Producers), Shlain, T., Steele, S., & Goldberg, K. (Directors). (2015). The Adaptable Mind [Motion Picture].

 

 

 

What LMS should offer

On By Margaret SimkinIn digital literacy, Digital scholarship, discussion, INF537, knowledge networks, Reflection2 Comments

What should an LMS offer?

By deciding to invest in a Learning Management System (LMS) educational institutions are expecting to see an impact on teaching and learning; they require that it generates a reasonable return for the money spent; that it is easy to use; and that it will provide data that leads to improved learning outcomes (Leaman, 2015, p. 1). Stipulations need to allocate uniform consideration to five necessary aspects: “interoperability, personalisation, analytics, collaboration and accessibility” (Straumsheim, 2015).

Often the reality of the system implemented falls short of the expectations and inherent limitations are often hidden. (Leaman, 2015, p. 2). This occurs because LMS are often set up to treat learning as a series of isolated incidents rather than a continuous process which builds on skills incrementally as the course progresses, and the nature of the learning delivery may be generic rather than personalised  (Leaman, 2015, p. 3).  Instructors may not use many functions of the system, and students do not engage as anticipated which compounds the issues as tangible learning is difficult to ascertain (Leaman, 2015, p. 4).

Viewing LMS in terms of learning enhancement needs to be undertaken with the understanding that an ecosystem of effective learning cannot be provided solely by the LMS, and educational institutions need to use such systems within their limitations (Leaman, 2015, p. 6). New iterations of LMS must focus on creating an environment where the parts fit together similarly to a child’s building blocks (Straumsheim, 2015). Whatever the components: assessment modules, or analytics, or others, support must be aimed at competency-based education (Straumsheim, 2015). If there are weaknesses, educators need to augment them by incorporating other tools and build onto what their LMS can achieve rather than replacing it with a different system (Leaman, 2015, p. 6). It is relatively common for faculty personnel to approach their LMS with caution, in a manner similar to someone involved in a “love-hate relationship” (Straumsheim, 2015).

Schools and universities should be prepared to use systems that enable users to move freely between public and private (or open and closed) spaces, and acquiring evidence of collaborations from anywhere online should be made possible (Straumsheim, 2015). New versions of LMS should be centred on the requirements and preferences of the students, whose learning they are intended to support (Straumsheim, 2015).

References

Leaman, C. (2015, August 20). What If Your Learning Management System Isn’t Enough? Retrieved from eLearning Industry: http://elearningindustry.com/learning-management-system-isnt-enough

Straumsheim, C. (2015, May 11). Brick by Brick. Retrieved from Inside Higher Ed: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/05/11/educause-releases-blueprint-next-generation-learning-management-systems

 

 

 

Why Use LMS?

On By Margaret SimkinIn Digital scholarship, discussion, effective teaching, INF537, knowledge networks, Reflection4 Comments

18 Instructional Tasks for Which Instructors Might use an LMS Tool

Schoonenboom published a list of tasks for which instructors might use a Learning Management System (LMS) (Schoonenboom, 2014, p. 248).  This will provide that starting point for a case study on the use of the SIMON LMS tool http://www.simonschools.net/about-simon.html in one school in regional Victoria.

  1. Meeting – defined as a session run through video conferencing software which may be part of the same proprietary suite or through a different medium e.g. Skype for Business or Adobe Connect (such as our Colloquiums.
  2. Guest speaker – see above.
  3. Probing – using a digital tool such as TodaysMeet  or SMS-poll  or Poll Everywhere
  4. Student questions
  5. Office – fixed “open” hours for chat or discussion through mechanisms such as Skype
  6. Reference lists, or reading lists or information sources
  7. Self-testing using assessment software
  8. Exam – administer testing through digital software either in a controlled lab space or classroom or online
  9. Instructor feedback – e.g. through comments and or reporting
  10. Portfolio – examine and comment on students acquired learning through their presentation of evidence in a digital portfolio system or tool e.g. through SharePoint or Class OneNote
  11. Student discussion – e.g. discussion forum
  12. Collaborative writing – e.g. through Class OneNote, wiki, blog, Google Docs
  13. Peer feedback – e.g. through Turnitin
  14. Blog – e.g. Blogger, WordPress
  15. PowerPoint – or other means of producing teacher based material e.g. Teacher notebook with Class OneNote
  16. YouTube – link to videos on YouTube that might support in class learning programs
  17. Web Lecture – record lessons and make available online (using Office Mix record audio to go with slide presentation)
  18. Instruction – as above or other digital artefacts created specifically for the subject by the teacher

 

In constructing a survey, it will be important to raise potential uses as well and investigate uses that are more obvious. There is a pressing need to elicit responses which will evaluate usefulness, ease of use and the LMS intention underpinning pedagogical development and methodology (Schoonenboom, 2014, p. 249)

References

Schoonenboom, J. (2014). Using an adapted, task-level technology acceptance model to explain why instructors in higher education intend to use some learning management system tools more than others. Computers & Education, pp. 247 – 256.

 

LMS & Learning

On By Margaret SimkinIn digital literacy, Digital scholarship, discussion, effective teaching, INF537, knowledge networks, ReflectionLeave a comment

Joining the Traveller’s Journey

(Thanks, Simon Welsh!)

In recently considering digital scholarship, and also reflecting on Colloquium 1 (Welsh, 2015), the potential of Learning Management Systems in comparison to their usage has presented itself as an issue worthy of academic investigation. Until hearing Simon speak passionately about the things many LMSs already measure, and those that could potentially be calculated and then applied to improving learning outcomes for students, I had not considered the possibilities, and these became clear (Welsh, 2015).

For many educators, the LMS is something that has been introduced into their working lives without explanation as to why it is needed, or what it can do for learning.  For secondary teaching colleagues, it has presented a platform for storing work for students, somewhere to host school-wide timetables, and more recently enable roll marking and report writing. Comparing the university LMS to that used at my recent schools has demonstrated some gaps, but the access to analytics, as referred to by Simon (Welsh, 2015), is not obvious to a learner in the former or a teacher in the latter.

Given that students have no say in the specific LMS required by their institution, to what extent do educators have choice in either system or what that system enables them to present (Islam, 2014, p. 253)? Do educators have freedom to create meaningful learning for their students or do the templates offered by the LMS constrain them; or is it incumbent on educators to build on what their LMS enables and augment the weaknesses (Leaman, 2015)?

Rekhari takes these concepts further by declaring that there is a chasm between learning design, technology and the LMS due to a combination of ineffective use by educators and flaws in the design of the systems (Rekhari, 2015, p. 12). She further questions whether the reasons that benefits that LMS intend to deliver to educational design are not entering praxis are the fault of the developers making the software hard to use, or the educators not proactively applying constructivist philosophies to their learning design (Rekhari, 2015, p. 13). She goes on to question whether LMSs are the barriers to educational change (Rekhari, 2015, p. 13).

This publication has led to much questioning of my own practices as an educator using an LMS – and has led to the realisation that beyond managing storage and retrieval of coursework, the other possibilities have not been considered. In order to further my understanding of what our school LMS can do I have requested time with one of the developers. To develop my understanding of practical analyses that already exist I have turned to Twitter, where I have engaged in meaningful dialogue with several professors in the Computer Science and Information Technology Department at RMIT, and who have sent me a document in which they compare Blackboard to Facebook in terms of supporting a specific online course in programming (Maleko, Nandi, Hamilton, D’Souza, & Harland, 2013). Additional reading has also been ongoing.

I “attended” the first Colloquium with a degree of disinterest predetermined on the basis of its description, and, due to Simon’s future predictions, it has intrigued me and started me on a learning journey I would never have predicted. This has proved not only interesting but potentially very useful, and will form the basis of my Case Study for Assignment 3.  From passive user to captivated challenger, I am now wondering if a different approach on my behalf could enable my development of a learning ecology for enhancing digital scholarship (Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009, p. 248).

References

Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching and scholarship in a digital age. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246-259.

Islam, A. N. (2014). Sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with a learning management system in post-adoption stage: a critical incident technique approach. Computers in Human Behavior, pp. 249-261.

Leaman, C. (2015, August 20). What If Your Learning Management System Isn’t Enough? Retrieved from eLearning Industry: http://elearningindustry.com/learning-management-system-isnt-enough

Maleko, M., Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., D’Souza, D., & Harland, J. (2013). Facebook versus Blackboard for supporting the learning of programming in a fully online course: the changing face of computer education. Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering, pp. 83-89.

Rekhari, S. (2015, August). The Chasm – learning design, technology, and the LMS. Training and Development, pp. 12-13. Retrieved from Australian Institute of Training and Development: www.aitd.com.au

Simkin, Margaret (2015, August 3): #2 http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/08/03/2/

Welsh, S. [Host] (2015, July 28). Learning Analytics: A Traveller’s Guide; Colloquium 2. Albury, Victoria, Australia.

 

 

 

 

PLE & PLN – it’s us!

On By Margaret SimkinIn Collaborating, Colloquium, Connecting, digital artefacts, digital literacy, discussion, effective teaching, INF537, knowledge networks, peer learning, Reflection2 Comments

Open and Social Learning according to Alec Couros:

An open course entitled Education, Curriculum, and Instruction: Open, Connected, Social using Free Ope Source Software through the University of Regina, was implemented in 2008. (Couros, 2010, p. 109). It was based on personal learning networks, and participants quickly realised the value of sustainable knowledge networks. This led to a context built around a series of events which quickly absorbed participants in an engaged community of participation (Couros, 2010, p. 110).

The theoretical foundations of the course were

The open movement (Couros, 2010, p. 111).

Complementary learning theories – social cognitive, social constructivism, andragogy, connectivism, and open teaching (Couros, 2010, pp. 112-115).

The primary learning environment was established collaboratively in the weeks preceding the course. The tools considered were:

Web CT (now Blackboard) – pros: familiar to students and the university had a strong infrastructure of support; cons: proprietary (modifications needed vendor support); directed learning favoured over constructivist; expensive licensing fees.

Moodle – pros: free; open source; modifiable, strong community support; touts a constructivist and social constructivist approach; available. Cons: needs PHP server infrastructure; requires technical expertise leading to hidden costs; software not as available as hoped; course-centric not student-centric; top-down instructivist approach.

Ning – pros: ease of use; freely available in 2008; familiar functionality similar to Facebook; community and individual privacy levels; user-centric spaces; content aggregation; communication tools. Cons: no wiki feature; awkward to add core content material.

Wikispaces – pros: senior, best-known and most stable of wiki providers; solid technical support; theme modification options; simple user interface – see http://eci831.ca/ (Couros, 2010, pp. 117 – 119).

The course required the establishment of a PLN, and it was mandatory that participants developed a personal blog/digital portfolio, participated in a collaborative wiki resource ( no longer active but was located at  http://t4tl.wikispaces.com; this is what happens when such a site is not paid for!) and completed a major digital project (sound like INF 530!) (Couros, 2010, pp. 119 -120).

The course was based on the following tools and interactions:

Synchronous activities: two events per week of between 1.5 and 2 hours in length; the first based on content knowledge (like our INF 537 colloquiums); the second on teaching skills (Couros, 2010, pp. 120-121).

Asynchronous activities: researching and blogging; shared bookmarking; artefact creation; participation in open professional development opportunities; creating content and uploading it to sites such as YouTube; microblogging; collaborative lesson design and contribution to the course wiki (Couros, 2010, pp. 121-122).

Knowledge networks and digital innovation’s forerunner?? Just like INF 530 and INF 536, students developed authentic, dynamic and fluid interactions both within the designated course spaces and in spaces they chose and shared themselves.

Defining Personal Learning Environments, and comparing them to Personal Learning Networks was an exercise undertaken by Couros through Twitter and recorded at http://educationaltechnology.ca/couros/1156. Key agreement indicated that PLEs are the tools, artefacts, processes, and physical connections that allow learners to control and manage their learning (Couros, 2010, p. 125). PLNs explicitly include the human connections that result in the advancement and enabling of a PLE (Couros, 2010, p. 125).

Couros makes the following recommendations for those wishing to use PLNs for teaching and learning:

  • Immersion by participants
  • Social media literacy
  • Active contributions strengthen your PLN
  • Know your “followers” or “friends”
  • PLNs are central to learning for sustained and long-term growth in both facilitators and students(Couros, 2010, pp. 125 -126).

The participatory learning communities developed by courses such as the one Couros describes continue to exist because they are not based around courses per se, but around communal learning (Couros, 2010, p. 127). Those of us taking the Knowledge Networks and Digital Innovation course can already attest to that in terms of the subjects we have already finished because for many of us the content continues to be shared and discussed. If Couros is correct, this course will never have to end – now there’s a challenge to my PLN!

Reference

Couros, A. (2010). Developing personal learning networks for open and social learning. In Veletsianos, G. (Ed.), Emerging technologies in distance education (109–128). Athabasca University: AU Press.

Article Review

On By Margaret SimkinIn Connecting, discussion, INF537, peer learning, Reflection1 Comment

Intelligent Questionnaire Design for Effective Participant Evaluation by Lisa Elias

Step 1: Before designing a survey it is critical that the objectives are identified – what is to be achieved and why is the survey necessary? This means considering the nature of the people who will be surveyed, those who will gain information and the purpose of the task itself.

Step 2. Then, write the questions in a clear, well thought out manner based on the objectives outlined in step 1. In this way, the data collected will be high quality and applicable to the needs of all concerned (Elias, 2015, p. 8).

Ensure that questions are:

Clear and unambiguous

Concise

Neutrally worded

Avoid embarrassment – omit or minimise sensitive topics

Ensure respondents’ privacy

Select the question formats with the objectives clearly in mind. A mix of question types will elicit the best data.

Question types to consider:

Yes/no – quick response enabling simple comparisons

Multiple choice – only one selection or multiple selection?

Likert scales – demonstrate a rating per respondent on a common scale

Open-ended responses – time-consuming to analyse but rich qualitative data. Use sparingly.

Alternative responses – allow respondents to opt out or provide their own answer

Ordinal/ranking – a series of items that respondents are asked to rank (for example from 1 to 5                         where 1 is most important and 5 least important; each number can only be used once)

Format the survey by considering the most logical layout to achieve your aims. This avoids confusing the respondents and makes analysis easier.

Introduction – explain why the survey has been established and convince people that                                    participation is valuable and worth their time and effort.

Order and group the questions according to the format you have deemed most logical.

Initial questions should be impersonal and easy to answer so that respondents continue.

Short is best (Elias, 2015, p. 9)…

But ensure the information will be adequate for the purpose.

Use contingency questions if applicable so that people do not have to answer questions                                   irrelevant to them. A preliminary question should ascertain how many, if any, questions of                           the following set need to be tackled.

Use a progress indicator for online surveys – it shows respondents how far they have to go.

Thank participants and provide your contact details.

Likert Scales should be:

labelled e.g. Poor (1) ranging to excellent (5)

Consist of an odd numbered scale so there is a mid-point – 5 or 7 options have proven best

Follow the same value pattern – either left to right or right to left

Make sure the words applied to the scale allow for the full range of responses

Elias provides a very helpful checklist to use when construction questionnaires:

  1. Has the survey been test-driven?
  2. Do others find the layout clear?
  3. Is the purpose explicitly explained?
  4. Have respondents been thanked?
  5. Is anonymity and confidentiality of data been guaranteed?
  6. Are instructions clear and precise?
  7. No duplication?
  8. Are questions plain and unequivocal?
  9. Are all questions essential?
  10. Are questions correctly ordered?
  11. Will closed questions result in the expected numerical data required?
  12. Are open text options sparingly used?
  13. Is there sufficient time for completion(Elias, 2015, p. 10)?

Reference:

Elias, L. (2015, February). Intelligent Questionnaire Design for Effective Participant Evaluations. Training and Development, 8-10.

 

#3

On By Margaret SimkinIn Colloquium, Connecting, discussion, Flipped classrooms, INF537, knowledge networks, official blog post, peer learning1 Comment

Blog post for Colloquium 3

What does ‘flat’ learning look like?

Flat connected learning incorporates aspects of Collaboration, Project based learning, Blended learning, Flipped learning, and Inquiry-based learning established within a framework based on a combination of Web 2.0, leadership, pedagogy and learning design (Lindsay, n.d.). In many ways, this sums up the reality of teaching and learning in an era of rapid technological development and pedagogical change.

 

It also encapsulates the five stage taxonomy of online, global learning:

  1. Online interactions
  2. Real encounters
  3. Online learning
  4. Community of practice
  5. Learning collaboratives (Lindsay J., 2015)

 

According to Julie the norms of global collaboration begin with being prepared; depend on having a purpose; require the ability to paraphrase, perceive, and participate; entail a positive mindset and productive nature; and are based on the ability to detect the potential in situations (Lindsay J. , 2015).

Pedagogical change evolves from being able to approach learning design with a flexible attitude, engaging with professional learning in a progressive manner, and adopting the essential elements of conceptual change (Lindsay J., 2015).

In this scenario the teacher is viewed as an activator and the student as an active participant in the process, while the school provides the conduit, and the community is seen as a partner in learning (Lindsay J., 2015).

Once the technological requirements are in place, and teachers have knowledge of new ways of meaningful engagement through TPACK and SAMR, and the belief that such pedagogy is important, flat connections and global learning become realistic options for developing knowledge and wisdom (Lindsay J., 2015). Such an approach leads to cosmogogy: the study of learning through connection to the world through the digital technologies available today. In such a scenario the context lies in learning with, not about, and geo-location is irrelevant (Lindsay J., 2015).

This presentation was a great introduction to the peer presentations relating to selected chapters of Wang’s extensive tome (Wang, 2014). These expositions demonstrated a potential for school adaptation where senior secondary students could lighten the load for each other in collaboratively summarising text. It certainly was of benefit to our cohort in this subject.

Three colloquiums, three very different ways of doing business – and all of them useful and thought provoking.

References

Lindsay, J. [. (2015, August 6). Colloquium 3: Flat Classrooms.

Lindsay, J. (n.d.). Flat Learning. Retrieved August 11, 2015, from Flat Collections: http://www.flatconnections.com/flat-learning.html

Wang, V. (. (2014). Handbook of research on education and technology in a changing society. London: IGI Global.

 

 

 

 

ICT Horizons

On By Margaret SimkinIn blended learning, Connecting, digital literacy, discussion, effective teaching, INF537, knowledge networks, ReflectionLeave a comment

The NMC Horizon Report 2015 K-12 and links to Wang and Weller readings:

The current edition of the Horizon report can be found here and a commentary on what it means for education can be found at the Mind Shift blog. It is always thought provoking to investigate this report and much of the content resonates with the subjects I have taken as part of my course.

This diagram gives a brief overview of this year’s findings:

Challenges

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The report this year sees integrating technology onto teacher education as solvable and cites the Finnish example of using Edukata (a participatory design model):

The more difficult, or wicked, challenge is scaling the models of teaching innovations(Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada, & Freeman, 2015, p. 1).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wang Chp 25

On By Margaret SimkinIn Colloquium, discussion, evaluation, Reflection2 Comments

Building Education and Technology Competencies for a Changing Society

This post is prompted by the need to master the chapter of the same name in (Wang, 2014, pp. 331-342) written by three women working at Auburn University in the United States (Witte, Wohleb, & Skinner, 2014). Whilst American in focus, the material embodies a high level of relevance for Australian K-12 and tertiary education.

American college students’ success is being challenged by 3 factors:

3 factors These factors are reflected in 3 trends:

 

3 trends

To assist this, K-12 educators need to incorporate the everyday use of technology into classrooms to maximise good habits that will assist with lifelong learning. Demonstrated to have a positive effect on tertiary students are these 5 habits:

5 habits

Educators at both tertiary and secondary level need to teach 5 skills:

5 skills

 

Competent tertiary students need to be:

  • Internationalist
  • Adaptable(Witte, Wohleb, & Skinner, 2014, p. 332)

And they need to graduate with the following 12 skills:

12 skills for graduates

 

(Witte, Wohleb, & Skinner, 2014, p. 336)

These skills can be developed by K-12 teachers incorporating the following tools into their lesson design:

  • Web-based programs
  • Learning Management Systems
  • Virtual Chat Rooms
  • Web-cams
  • Skype or FaceTime  (Witte, Wohleb, & Skinner, 2014, p. 332).

Technology tools should be capable of assisting teachers to instruct, monitor and assess within a learning environment that is both engaging and motivating for their students (Witte, Wohleb, & Skinner, 2014, p. 333).

The processes that result from such a scenario should be more

  • Individualised
  • Differentiated
  • Specialised
  • Dynamic(Witte, Wohleb, & Skinner, 2014, p. 333).

In all cases the aim should be to reflect the positivity relating to technical incorporation, and such action should be linked to learning, as using appropriate tools is the critical link to student success (Witte, Wohleb, & Skinner, 2014, p. 335).

References

Wang, V. (. (2014). Handbook of research on education and technology in a changing society. IGI Global. London: IGI Global.

Witte, M. M., Wohleb, E., & Skinner, L. (2014). Building Education and Technology Competencies for a Changing Society. In V. (. Wang, Handbook of Research on Education and Technology in a Changing Society (pp. 331-342). IGI Global.

 

#1

On By Margaret SimkinIn Colloquium, digital literacy, discussion, INF537, official blog post8 Comments

Blog post 1

Learning Through Exploration and Play

The first colloquium in this subject was hosted by Annabel Astbury,  a past History teacher, educational leader for the History Teachers’ Association of Victoria, and currently working to deliver the curriculum through ABC Splash. The manner in which this session was delivered was slick and personable, with the chat comments being consistently monitored.  Responses to comments were addressed to the individual attendant who posted the comment or question. This is a skill that so many online presenters have not developed.

The Splash motto: “explore, play, learn” succinctly encapsulates the website’s offerings to education. Opportunities for classes and individuals to engage with the material are provided in the formats of film, games and text.  All resources address Australian Curriculum   standards, and many of the activities are aimed at students from Years 5 to 8.

Annabel outlined the various decisions that had been made in the design of the product, which was predicated on the premise that “the world did not need another product for lesson creation” (Astbury, 2015). The significance of this statement is felt in classrooms all over the world, where there are no systems in place for sorting through the increasing wealth of educational materials (Calhoun, 2015).

Teachers everywhere are overworked, and increasingly overwhelmed by a “dazzling forest of finely-tuned” products, and there is little time to assess their value, master and adopt them within teaching programs to achieve meaningful outcomes (Calhoun, 2015). A repository of products designed by and for Australians (with an online educational base of only 3.2 million users) is critically important to learning in the digital age (Astbury, 2015).

ABC Splash offers a curated and appropriate collection, and furthermore, links to Scootle, an online, Australian Curriculum specific store of material accessible to all practicing teachers, including casual relief teachers.  This would seem to be an enticing proposition enabling easy integration into classrooms across the nation while leading to the potential for a “flow experience” for students (Lemke, 2010, p. 247).

Appropriate innovative practise through the infusion of technology, and the resources this allows, should contribute to classrooms full of fully engaged students who are intrinsically motivated and “110% invested” in learning (Lemke, 2010, pp. 246 – 247). Incorporating technological solutions and permitting students to work differently on mastering learning relies on the critical adoption of skills for the current century. This requires deep thinking in relation to the implications of the new teaching and learning resources, in order to develop a more empowering model of authentic learning (November, 2010, p. 278).

Lemke believes that vesting students with power will increase efficacy in their learning skills, and, if the task is complex, result in more creativity and innovation, and lead to improved adaptive proficiency (Lemke, 2010, p. 247). Such outcomes will only occur if educators can move beyond seeing multimodal incorporation as more than something predominantly technical that simply requires the alignment of minds with machines (Selwyn, 2010, p. 67).

ABC Splash offers educators in Australia the ability to offer a range of learning materials that relate to the context in which Australian students live (Astbury, 2015). In an era where individuals have devices in their hands in most classrooms, the incorporation of such material can be woven seamlessly into lesson design, particularly in settings where students own the culture of learning, and collaborate with each other in creative and multimodal ways (November, 2010, p. 282).

The use of digital technology is pitted against long-standing traditions, and entrenched concerns, often at a micro level, of the everyday educational experiences, pre and post the digital age (Selwyn, 2014, p. 164). This is the dichotomy of the times in which we educate.

Providing teachers access to resources is of little value of they do not utilise them in some way. Constant reminders of what access has been provided, and what it will allow in classrooms is becoming a crucial aspect of the teacher-librarian’s  work.  “But, the way we are approaching the integration of technology into our school systems is raising red flags. If we don’t figure out exactly what these early warning signals mean and incorporate their lessons into our design and our educational philosophy, we risk generating backlash and squandering valuable momentum. We also risk producing a generation of graduates who are unprepared for the future ahead of us” (Calhoun, 2015). This is the critical aspect of the work that we do in our school library roles.

References

Astbury, A. [Host). (2015, July 21). ABC Splash Online Colloquium. Retrieved July 21, 2015

Calhoun, N. (2015, July 21). How Technology Is Crash Landing in Our Public Schools. Retrieved from Singularity Hub: http://singularityhub.com/2015/07/21/how-technology-is-crash-landing-in-our-public-schools/

Kay, K. (2015, July 21). Do You Have 21/21 Vision? Retrieved from Edutopia Blog: http://www.edutopia.org/blog/do-you-have-2121-vision-ken-kay

Lemke, C. (2010). Innovation Through Technology. In C21st Century Skills: Rethinking How Students Learn (pp. 243-274). Bloomington: Solution Tree.

November, A. (2010). Technology Rich, Information Poor. In 21st Century Skills: Rethinking How Students Learn (pp. 275-283). Bloomington: Solution Tree.

Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning(26 (1)), 65 – 73. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00338.x.

Selwyn, N. (2014). Education and ‘the digital’. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 35:1, 155-164. doi:10.1080/01425692.2013.856668