The ten components of NTeQ Instructional Design for Information Technology allow the teacher to integrate technology using either a cognitive or constructive approach to learning. The components instruct the teacher to specifically consider how he/she will integrate the technology depending on the specified objectives, along with practical considerations, such as the learning environment, availability of technology, time constraints and class composition. How the teacher designs the instruction using this model will play a large part in determining the learning approach.
There are many characteristics in the NTeQ model that make its design appear that it is intended for a constructivist learning approach. For example, like Project-Based Learning, the model contains "Specifying a Problem." This is similar to the PBL framework which uses a driving question. Further, like PBL, this problem should be relevant, meaningful and realistic to the learner. However, how the teacher approaches the design using the NTeQ model will determine the learning approach.
Cognitive and constructive learning approaches have some similar traits. Yet, a constructivist approach normally includes the teacher allowing the students an opportunity to experience a higher level of autonomy and initiative. The NTeQ model can potentially allow this, but the design components also provide the ability for the teacher to control the learning environment to the point that a full constructivist approach is not implemented. While the model urges the teacher to allow the learner to take "ownership" of the problem in the third component, many of the model's other components undermine some of that ownership and chip away at the student's autonomy and initiative. For example, component two, "Matching Objective to Computer Function," leaves the teacher determining which tool will work best for the assignment rather than empowering the learners to determine what tool they will use to construct their own learning. Needless to say, the teacher would certainly act as a guide and provide suggestions, but the learner should have the opportunity to consider what technology tool will work best to solve the problem and, in many assignments, create the product.
In fact, component two, "Matching Objective to Computer Function," may not even be a necessary component, regardless of the learning approach. One has to ask whether or not it is necessary to determine this match with learners who, for the most part, use technology in many areas of their lives. The idea, for example, that a teacher would create an instructional design which specifies the use of only one application on one type of device is becoming something that was part of our past. Certainly some schools and districts continue to lock down systems and dictate what applications students will use, but there is no doubt that many learners can offer suggestions themselves when it comes to determining which application or device will make the best fit for their assignment. The other day a parent was telling me her eight year old son had attended a geocaching session. When he got home he searched for a free geocaching app on his mother's smart phone which he then downloaded for his own personal use. Another parent told me her 11 year old son received a new computer tablet and that same day snapped some photos of the family, edited them and created a short video with music. These examples suggest to me that a teacher would be better off having some suggestions for students if they are stuck on how to proceed, but should also be open to allowing students to use their prior knowledge and experience with technology to solve their own problems. If an eight year old can figure out he can do some geocaching on his mom's smart phone, then I suspect this component of the NTeQ model probably has little to no application in today's classroom. In fact, as discussed in the next paragraph, this component could be merged into another.
The component "Specifying a Problem" is an essential one because it helps the teacher to design an instruction that has the potential to connect with the learners in both authentic and meaningful ways. The students become active participants in their learning with the opportunity to develop skills and gain knowledge as they take ownership of their learning experience. In fact, in this component it is specified that, when possible, "involve students in identifying the resources needed to solve the problem." If we consider how students approach the use of technology today, this is a great opportunity to add the aforementioned component within this component and consider not only resources, but which technology tools would be best suited to help solve the problem.
Another essential component is "Planning the Supporting Activities." This component allows for students to reach out to the world beyond the classroom where they can, when applicable, make contact with "content experts." This is also the time when the teacher can provide them with supplement material such as documentaries, websites, etc. Or the teacher can also challenge the students to find some of these supplement materials, depending on the assignment and their age level. The teacher might provide mini-lessons and class discussions that relate to the study to help reinforce the students' understanding and knowledge. This component addresses the realities of the classroom and sometimes the "unexpected issues" with technology. Downtime happens, even in the best laid plans. So instead of the teacher scrambling for "busy" work, the students can continue to be engaged in activities that are directly related to their current study.
The "Planning the Supporting Activities" component is one idea that I think would be beneficial to the group ID model for IT that we have created. While I find some of the components within the NTeQ model excessively "micro-manage" the design, I think this component has a valid role as discussed in the previous paragraph. The purpose of our assignment was to create an ID model that fully explores how to implement technology. There is, however, a tendency to focus so much on technology to forget that other factors have to be considered, such as supporting activities and materials. Not every aspect of the design has to include technology, and in a regular classroom, it is unlikely that technology will be the only tool used or the only way students will access other materials and resources. While I do not necessarily think our model ignores the possibility of non-technological components within the design, it may be a good idea to remind the designer/teacher that they should be given full consideration.
One characteristic I did find lacking in the NTeQ design is gathering feedback from the learners in terms of their experiences in the learning process. There appears to be no opportunity for the teacher to stop and reflect with the learners how the instructional design is working. The model does include a suggestion for teachers to complete a test run if they intend to use existing data to ensure it will work with the chosen application. But I do feel the model is significantly lacking in the ability for the teacher to make quick revisions and to also allow the learners to be active participants by reflecting on their own learning experiences, except for the purpose of assessment by completing personal journals.
No comments:
Post a Comment