Entry 5 IDT1415 Affordances and Limitations of my iPod

I got my first iPod in 2003 at Gatwick airport on my way back to Italy after a summer working in the UK as a pre sessional lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University. It soon became a tool I was using in my listening lessons where I would prepare activities mainly around songs  up until I was able to record my own files and import course book tracks. I would say that my iPod was a clear example of Tech 1.0 as it was a great source of unidirectional help as the level of interaction the tool afforded users was reduced.  

On closer analysis of the iPOD (the first model I had along to the latest one: iPOD Video) and its affordances and limitations it can be said that the level of anonimity  offered depends on the users and the authors of any information to be conveyed through it.  With the advent of the iPhone, all of the content which was confided to the iPOD is now available in it so I still use my iP'hone'OD in class along with speakers or by connecting it to the smart screens we have when visual/video input has been incorporated into the plan.

Unfortunately, asynchronous communication was not an option for my first iPOD and only became available when it evolved into a later version which integrated access to the internet mainly via email and then social networks. Rapid feedback, private communication and sequential or joint result as intended in a web 2.0 context was also not possible initially so 'feedback' had a more limited definition and was also restricted to face to face interaction in the classroom while using the technology, private communication simply was not possible as there was no access to the web and for the same reason sequentiality was prevented. Of course, these limitations changed with the later models which included these added features even if initially it was still a culture of individual and unidirectional interaction with the gimmick.  The one affordance amongst all limitations mentioned above is probably the one I actually think was and still is essential in my learning:  ability to review. I believe this ability to review can be intended from two different perspectives each in line with web 1.0 and 2.0 concepts. The former is related to the fact that it provided me, the individual user, with the possibility to constantly review and revisit the contents therein. The latter, once access to the web was a reality redefined the concept. 

Nowadays, although still available iPODs are fast becoming obsolete because of the their own affordances. As Sir Ken Ronbinson said in one of his TED Talks on education reform and technology - his daughter does not wear a watch anymore because all it does is give the time when her iPhone is multipurpose.  iPhones and smart phones now incarnate this very concept of 'Portable On Demand' limitless possibilities in one single device, which is both exiting and unsettling.

Cecilia's question post comment - could the degree to which an individual embraces such a culture clash with that of other individuals? and if so what is the effect (if any) of the clash on personal/working/learning relations?   

My answer -Thank you Cecilia for your comments and questions. I think that the degree to which individuals embrace the smart phone culture has clear effects on everything else they do as it clashes to varying degrees with how they relate to others, work or learn. The very fact that we can now 'phub' people, that is, snub them in a social setting by interacting with your phone is more worrying than funny. As with everything in life, I believe, the key is striking a balance where our social relationships even inside the home are protected from this invasive phenomenon. And I'd like to add that it does not have to be the latest piece of technology the one that creeps in and slowly eats up your f2f social interactions, the 'old' TV screen can do that. Here in Italy it seems to be commonly accepted to have a TV set in the kitchen - we have 3 in our home! and to have it on while having a meal!? I am a culprit myself for easily embracing this habit which on reflection can steal precious conviviality moments of value time from intimate moments like those of sharing a meal!

This, I also believe, extends to how we work and learn. I personally find that even at work I'm often sending emails and sharing information with teachers in the room next door! And when learning - although I must confess I do not see a problem with this one - I find information at my finger tips is attractively deceitful as one link leads to another and so on so becoming aware of and able to avoid the time-bending spiral trap this offers requires having been there and trying to get out of it while keeping your sanity.

In short, it is  the collaboration/social interaction that both Victoria and Barbara mention what provides in, IMHO, the possibility to keep the subtle isolation 'smart' tech can easily lead to. And as Carry Bradshaw once said in Sex and the City: 'So close and yet so far apart!'

Entry 4 IDT1415 Impact on My Role

How might my role change?

Before we start, take a minute to note down a few points about how you might expect your teaching role to change when you introduce technology to your classes.

When I first started introducing technology into my classes my role did not change much as at that stage I had already started to become more and more aware of the need to be a facilitator rather than a central figure and thus I was in the process of adopting a more learner-centred approach. On reflection, I can say that this facilitating role was not really enhanced but simply supplemented in the sense that instead of setting up tasks for students using traditional materials e.g. the course book, paper and pen, cutups, flashcards , etc. I was doing pretty much the same but with the novelty of a technological gadget e.g. at least 15 years ago I particularly remember a listening lesson where I brought in a set of 5 different tape recorders for a jigsaw listening activity where learners went to different rooms to carried it out and which was set up via an OHP caused a small degree of sensation amongst students and fellow teachers. Dudeney et al. (2013) report that what may really be the cause for any positive outcomes of technology implementation is the enthusiasm teachers bring along or the re-design of programs which was exactly my own experience as described here.

After watching the videos, I can say that I totally agree with how their roles changed with the integration of technology as I have gone through very similar changes. Firstly, as Jenny, I can say that my awareness of the learner has definitely continued to increase because I constantly remind myself of the fact that any added technology must add value to the learning experience and whether the same experience would have the same outcome should the technology not be there. Is my knowledge and content of the lesson enhanced by the chosen tool as suggested by Mishra and Koehler's Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge framework (2006)? Secondly, I can also identify with Prof Mazur's ideas as the resounding idea is that of embracing a more learner-centred approach and this I believe to be especially needed in contexts like his where the word 'lecturing' equals with passive exposure to information. Finally, Mohammed says that technology has allowed for more relaxed and open interaction with his students and at university level where classes can be very big (I once had a 160 student class at the Polytechnic of Turin preparing for Preliminary!). In cases like this one, I can see how the use of clicker apps like Geddit and Kahoot would have added value to my lecturing back then. Currently and in the private sector conditions are extremely different even if some similarities are shared.

In short, the impact of technology on my teaching role can be said to be permanent and widespread as the private sector institution I work for wants to stand out as a provider of excellent teaching and training and believes that technology is an important part of this. This added to my own interest in the integration of pedagogically driven and sound technology into our teaching means that I am constantly reminded of and required to ensure our use of technology is clearly tied to our syllabus. This year in particular, we are introducing tablets and smart TVs to the classrooms without IWBs.

(This post has also been posted on my reflective blog for this module).

References
Dudeney, G., Hockly, N., and Pegrum, M. 2013. Digital Literacies. Research and Resources in Language Teaching. Harlow, Pearson Education.
Mishra, P. and Koehler, M.J. 2006 'Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge', Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-54.

Entry 3 IDT1415 Drivers for Using Technology

Different contexts call for different rationales to be considered as what technology and how it is implemented is directly related to it. In my case, I work in the private ESOL sector which is fraught with constraints usually along the lines of financially viable and as economical as possible technological solutions which will keep the institution at the fore front in terms of competitiveness and innovation. Also, a results-based mentality which equates high scores/attainment of speaking proficiency certificates with learning placing the focus on the product rather than on the process. In Burt's opinion, it is lack of focus on the process, motivation and the experiences that are dependent on it as well as the apparent inability to convey one's passion for the subject while delivering an online course lead to his disbelief in the effectiveness of online learning. Happily enough, my professional experience and own context have been completely different and are also blessed with some freedoms e.g. smaller classes (maximum 10 students per group) as opposed those mentioned by Dr Ashraf; more flexibility as to how teaching is delivered thus giving the possibility to easily introduce Podcasts or any other tool as done by Dr Ashraf above, and an implementation of different approaches such as Teaching by Questioning and the use of clickers as described by Prof. Mazur.

As far as my own rationale for using technology with my teacher trainees and students is concerned, I would say that it is mainly related to their changing needs both as professional teachers and students themselves and motivation in general. As teachers, I believe that Joe Dale's words fit in perfectly: 'Technology is not going away and language teachers need to embrace its full potential to engage our 21st century learners' and so experienced and novice teachers alike have a choice to make - either fall behind or buckle up and catch up with the 'program'. As students, and by students I mean not only that who is enrolled in a course, but as lifelong learners, there is a pressing need to keep up to date in a competitive world. As far as motivation is concerned, having done many online courses I firmly believe that motivation is key both in face to face and online teaching/learning. I particularly like Alan McLean's 3 As of motivation (Affiliation, Agency, Autonomy) and so these are at the base of any decisions regarding what technology to implement.  For instance, I introduced into all our Teacher Training Courses the use of a online shared folder initially via Dropbox and then COPY 2 years ago, as well as more recently using Edmodo through which I  share materials I designed and also curate to provide trainee teachers with extra pre face to face course preparation. Feedback has shown that this shared folder along with weekly exchanges with participants before the course increases their sense of affiliation. Agency is promoted through tasks which guide them through the contents of these shared folders and Autonomy is fostered via the way in which the tasks are designed e.g. encouraging individual completion of tasks and their sharing of these with the others. Overall, success rates have increased and more importantly client satisfaction has maintained high.

In short, my rationale for the inclusion of technology in my courses via an inductive approach, especially guided discovery, is directly related to those perceived changing needs of my students/trainees and a concrete desire to increase their motivation regardless of intrinsic or extrinsic factors.

Entry 2 IDT1415 Learner-Device Relationship

I would join Barbara (Moodle Forum) and add that I believe the factors related to their relationship with devices determine the different levels of attainment in the learning process. Along the lines of Barbara's post, the following questions seem appropriate:

- Are the learners digital natives or immigrants? (deliberately placed first with learners always as the starting point!) Their level of comfort, training, attitude, etc. as this would have a direct effect on their motivation and whether the sense of agency, affiliation and autonomy (McLean, 2003) is then fostered or hindered by the device.

- What does the context in which technology is intended to be implemented offer/lack?

- Is is a face to face, fully online or blended learning environment? A landmark report by the US Department in 2009 states that the greater improvements were found in blended learning iterations (Dudeney, Hockly and Pegrum 2012).

- The curriculum and whether there is indeed a need for technology to be implemented and to what extent.

- How would 'device' be defined (depending on the context) and what would the implications be? For instance, what if you have students who do not have smart phones/tablets/ipads, if they have different ones, or not all of them do, etc?

These questions in turn can be said to be in line with Dudeney, Hockly and Pegrum's (2012) allusion to Russell's No Significant Difference Phenomenon and how research points to how what counts is what is being measured (p.42). Consequently, in order to measure the effect on learning the relationship between the learner and their device may have, a definition of said relationship is required.

From a very personal point of view and experience, mobile devices have made me a very happy learner as I feel I can take my learning everywhere - space and time barriers cannot stop me any longer and this liberating sense has both been exhilarating and overwhelming. The former as I am able to efficiently use the time otherwise wasted for instance while waiting for the bus, and the latter because of the sheer amount of new information and tech tools available every day and in constant change. 

In an attempt to define this learner-device relationship it may be considered in the same way one relates to an intimate relation and its deriving implications: love, hate, need, desire, interest, support, honesty, and awareness amongst others. In order to provide a more concrete description I will refer to my own devices and how I relate to them as a learner. For instance, I love the freedom my iPad and smart phone give me which initially my iPod provided. I hate the fact that different providers use different systems and thus different system literacy proficiency is required e.g. iOS, android, linux, etc. At the same time, I am more and more aware of the need to stay focused, filter carefully and select wisely those tools and the devices which allow for their effective use while maintaining the desire to use the device high. This desire should clearly, in my humble opinion, be correctly understood as contributing to one's own learning, that is, the learning objective(s) must be clear to the user. Related to desire is also interest as it is often triggered by the unknown and again a desire to know something better so along these lines the process of becoming proficient in using the device should foster such interest. Now, the level of support provided by the device or device provider will also have a big impact on this relationship as the more accessible it is e.g. video, written, tutorials, etc. the faster and stronger the relationship will grow. The last two, honesty and awareness, I believe to be fundamental in this relationship as they will have a long lasting impact which will determine the longevity of this interaction between learner and device. Knowing one's own and the device's limitations will translate into heightened awareness of what can or not be done with it and an honest approach to its implementation.

References
McLean, A. (2003) The Motivated School. London, Sage Publications.
Dudeney, G., Hockly, N., and Pegrum, M. (2013) Digital Literacies. Research and Resources in Language Teaching. Harlow, Pearson Education.