Tag: K-12

Week 14 – Annotation 2 – Creating technology-enhanced, learner-centered classrooms: K-12 teachers beliefs, perceptions, barriers, and support needs.

A.M. Ternullo

An, Y. J., & Reigeluth, C. (2011). Creating technology-enhanced, learner-centered classrooms: K–12 teachers’ beliefs, perceptions, barriers, and support needs. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(2), 54-62.

            An and Reighluth (2011) conducted a survey-based exploratory study to learn about teacher perceptions, barriers, and support needed to create technology-enhanced classrooms. An et al. provide a literature review that defines the learner-center classroom space, personalized and customized learning, self-regulated learning, collaborative and authentic learning experiences, and technology integration. An et al. draw from the current-at-the-time research to develop a theoretical underpinning of technology use in the classroom. The study focuses on five elements related to K -12 teachers: beliefs and attitudes toward using technology in teaching and learning, perception of learner-centered instruction, perception of barriers to implementing technology and learner-centered classrooms, perceptions effective professional development and how to improve professional development, and teacher support needs. An et al. conducted a survey developed from their literature review and added additional Likert scale questions. The survey had a response rate of 32%. The results showed that teachers believed technology was important to teaching, they supported use of classroom technology, learned new technologies, and believed it was part of their job as teachers to learn new technology to implement in the classroom. Teachers positively viewed learner-centered instruction, but found it both challenging and rewarding. Most teachers perceived they provided personalized learning to their students. Most teachers did not perceive that their own personal attitudes were a barrier to implementing learner-centered instruction or technology. Teachers found two weaknesses in professional development: they were not specific enough and contain too much information in too short a time frame. Teachers want improved professional development sessions that given them hands on support, learner-centered environments, and specificity. An et al. also acknowledge the systems teachers want in place cannot exist without support from the systems teachers work in. The end with a suggestion or further research to test the generalizability of the findings of this study.

            An et al. organize their study very well. The problem was clearly articulated up front. The conceptual framework led directly to the five facets of research presented. The methodology was clearly described. They provided relevant citations to support their work, which was current. The research was presented in a very clear and organized fashion that was easily accessible to the reader. The concepts were all clearly operationalized and defined so that a scholar unfamiliar with all of the concepts were easily accessible. The results tied back to the literature review, and appropriate studies were cited to support the findings. The discussion led to other opportunities for research.

            As a doctoral student, this article serves as a good model for organizing a paper. I enjoyed reading a study that was well organized and where all the parts were easily identifiable. I did not have to do a lot of work to understand the concepts presented because the authors clearly defined terms that needed to be defined and provided adequate supporting research. This is something I think about as I write my own papers – being clear in the patterns and ideas I see and clearly articulating those ideas for an audience who may read my work. The development of the instrument was discussed and that is also important so we can understand what is being measured is accurately represented. The results and discussion also made clear connections back to the literature review.

            As an administrator and a teacher, I found the discussion about teacher perceptions of professional developments. I share the same sentiments that most professional development is too long, too broad, and a reflection of what someone else thinks I should know as a professional rather than what I need to know. It’s a good reminder to ask the people who need the professional development what they need instead of thinking I know, even though I teach, too.

Week 13 Annotation – “Understanding creativity in primary English, science, and history”

A.M. Ternullo

McLean, N., Georgiou, H., Matruglio, E., Turney, A., Gardiner, P., Jones, P., & Groves, C. E. (2021). Understanding creativity in primary English, science, and history. The Australian Educational Researcher, 50(2), 581-600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-021-00501-4

McLean et al. (2021) conducted exploratory qualitative research of nine Australian primary school teachers to expand understanding of how teaching creativity manifests in the primary classroom and to see how creative thinking is operationalized within the classroom – a gap the authors perceived in the literature. McLean et al provided a robust literature review on creativity, emphasizing that the research gap was in how creativity is manifest in the classroom. This study investigated how “teacher practice can increase students’ creative capacity and creative confidence” (para. 6). Three research questions were investigated: What are primary teachers’ conceptualizations of creativity; What does creativity look like in the classroom, according to teachers? And What, according to teachers are the creative thinking skills associated with each discipline? Nine Australian primary teachers were participants. Three English teachers, three history teachers, and three science teachers represented their disciplines. The data was coded to three themes to answer the research questions: definitions, manifestations, and teaching for creativity. The first finding is that while teachers reported creativity was important to student learning, it was a difficult concept to define. Teachers could articulate creativity for their discipline, but not clearly or in a complete definition. Though all agreed creativity was essential for student learning. Manifestations of creativity were specific classroom practices and examples. Things like dramatic performance of concepts of text analysis were considered manifestations of creativity. Teaching for creativity was also a key theme included skills such as: analysis, communication, curiosity, inquiry, open-mindedness, and problem-solving. However to use the skills, students needed to be able to so in discipline specific ways. Additionally, all teachers spoke of creativity in relationship to foundational skill and knowledge in their area, holding that students could not be creative unless and until they understood the basics for the content area. McLean et al. hold there is opportunity for more research into how creativity is conceptualized in the classroom to eliminate ambiguity of the concept in operationalization in education,

Overall, this article is very well structured. The literature review leads directly to the research questions. The literature review leads also to a clear gap that the research can address. McLean et al. did a great job of clearly articulating the research questions, methodology to address the research questions, and provided coding process. The research results provided clear and specific examples to help the reader fully see the phenomenon at play. The only things that I wish were included that were not included were the questions used in the semi-structured inverview process and examples of the coding. While the process was very clearly described, and there was member checking and validation of the coding process, only the coding reference from NVivo was provided, and it would have been nice to see more details from NVivo, for example.

As an writing teacher, I think I take for granted that my students are going to be creative. It seems a given, that if you’re going to write a paper, for example, there will be an expression of creativity in the process. But from this week’s readings, it’s clear that creativity or having creative thinking  can and should more granular and specific. Seeing that in the classroom spaces, there are other educators who can state creativity is important – because it’s at the top of Bloom’s Taxonomy and we’ve been taught we want students operating in higher order thinking activities such as creation – but being unable to fully articulate what it is to be creative is challenging when you’re trying to help students be creative. I think it helps to have a clear definition of creativity for a field that can be operationalized for a task and for assessment. This article affirmed that the ambiguity of creativity can be further refined through more research.

Week 12 – AI Blog Discussion

A.M. Ternullo

Nemorin, S., Vlachidis, A., Ayerakwa, H. M., & Andriotis, P. (2023). AI hyped? A horizon scan of discourse on artificial intelligence in education (AIED) and development. Learning, Media and Technology, 48(1), 38-51.

  • AI Tech policies could potentially be another form of western imperialism since the West is making up the rules governing AI usage in industry.
  • AI Tech is not inherently inert – its use takes people and turns them into data that can (and will be) exploited.

Nemorin et al. (2023) changed my view of AI use because there are many implications to those who make the rules shaping the narrative, which will inherently erase people as it collects all the data it can from them; that data will be used to change the world.

Sofia, M., Fraboni, F., De Angelis, M., Puzzo, G., Giusino, D., & Pietrantoni, L. (2023). The impact of artificial intelligence on workers’ skills: Upskilling and reskilling in organisations. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 26, 39-68.

  • AI use requires workers to be skilled and trained critical thinkers, collaborators, and problem solvers in order to effectively leverage AI to maximize potential in the workspace.
  • Humans have unique skills that are not replicable by AI (yet – I mean, I have seen Battlestar Galactica and AI could become sentient at some point) and they have to use AI to free up time to work within skillsets AI cannot replicate.

Sofia et al (2023) have a theory that functions on the idea that skilled workers need to develop new skills, which rely being educated in critical thinking, collaboration and problem solving – but in a society that increasingly diminishes the value of those skills, AI may not be as helpful as imagined in the future.

Touretzky, D., Gardner-McCune, C., Martin, F., & Seehorn, D. (2019, July). Envisioning AI for K-12: What should every child know about AI?. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (Vol. 33, No. 01, pp. 9795-9799).

  • AI researchers need to make their work available and accessible to K-12 teachers and students in intellectually appropriate ways.
  • Students across the K-12 spectrum are capable of and should be using and evaluating AI tools as part of their education.

Touretzky et al (2019) reaffirm what I have been hearing as higher ed administrator for years: kids today are preparing for jobs that don’t even exist yet and will need skills we don’t have yet – by providing them the time and space to experiment with known technology, they’ll be more flexible in learning new skills in the future.

Park, C. S.-Y., Kim, H., & Lee, S. (2021). Do less teaching, more coaching: Toward critical thinking for ethical applications of artificial intelligence. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 6(2), 97-100.

  • AI has the huge potential to change classroom teaching, but educators have to teach students to think critically when using AI
  • There are many ethical implications, that if not considered, could undermine the educational goal of critical thinking

Park et al (2023) emphasize that educators need to teach the implications of AI in relationship to critical thinking along side the content.

Adding in ideas from Peers

Susan Lindsay pointed out “AI in education” is driven by market interests. As an administrator in higher education, overseeing a writing department, I have been heavily involved in discussions related to AI use in the classroom and its implications. Community partners are now coming back to advisory boards and noting that they want to see graduates who are comfortable working alongside AI technology. This opens up a lot of questions for beginning writing classes, where critical thinking for academic thinking is often first introduced. The biggest question is: How can we teach students to think critically if we immediately embrace AI technology? It’s an interesting question to grapple and leads to larger questions about the intersection of education and jobs training. Until recently college education wasn’t about being trained for a specific job – it was about gaining the “soft skills” – critical thinking, broad base knowledge, and professional discourse foundations – to be successful on the job.

Martha Ducharme also commented along the same vein about adding AI instruction in to K-12 educational spaces. I had not viewed the recommendation Touretzky et al. (2019) made to teach AI technology along side other content, as a skill, as a “rip and replace” approach. But, I can see how it can be viewed that way. AI has come into play the same way the Internet did. Heck, I remember when I was in the 6th grade in the late 90s and we started learning basic computer programming – and it was seen as revolutionary for us to make a turtle avatar make geometric shapes across a screen. We had computer class twice a week, instead of once a week, and it was a disruption, but we still learned all the other basic subjects. So, I think it’s really important to prepare students from a young age to be comfortable with the foundational aspects of AI because by the time they enter the work force, AI won’t be novel, it will be integrated into life. And if we don’t make the AI visible, they won’t have the necessary skepticism to think critically about it as Park et al. (2021) warned about in their work.