CEP 811 has come to an end and now I have been asked to reflect on what new thinking I have experienced during CEP 811 and how I feel this will influence my work as an educator. To be honest, this course has had an immense impact on my view of what constitutes learning. Although I have always been a proponent of the notion that students learn best by being active participants in the learning process, I have very rarely thought about how students could proceed beyond things like participation. This course however, has started to get me thinking about the idea of making or creating as part the learning process.
In CEP 811 the idea of making revolved around maker kits, and although this was an extremely interesting topic it does not fit well with the subject that I teach. Nevertheless, the notion of integrating the creative process into the learning and the student experience can work with almost any subject. Therefore, if there is one thing I have come away with from CEP 811, it is that making can provide students with the ability to truly get involved with the learning process and the subject/topic being taught. Moreover, rather than spoon feeding students with the information, making allows students to think critically, problem solve and experiment and provides students the opportunity to learn from both their failures and successes.
And now a haiku…
The teacher guides them A student learns by doing Every student can
“This is the end, my only friend, the end”. This is the last week of CEP 811 and for the ‘end’ we have been asked to think about assessment as related to maker education and creativity. As with many of my blog posts, I would like to address this topic by providing you with a little background information on how and why we assess here at the American University of Sharjah (AUS) Library, and my vision for the types of assessment measures we can use to assess the use of maker kits in the classroom.
Currently, the AUS Library uses a multi-pronged approach to assessment, in which various assessment techniques and methods are utilized prior to, during and following information literacy instruction. Assessment of AUS IL classes is essential, as it allows librarians to: monitor effectiveness for accountability, better identify instructional practices, evaluate the effectiveness of instructional practices, measure student achievement (i.e. how much they know) and evaluate students’ mastery of skills (i.e. what they can do). However, the majority of our assessment measures revolve around the assessment of skills related to information literacy, as documented in the ACRL’s Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. This type of skills-based assessment, is often rigid and focuses on the use of surveys, fixed test questions and closed-ended questions.
Recently, however, there has been a major shift occurring in the way academic librarians conduct assessment. This is largely due to the development of the ACRL’s new Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education (2015), which places an emphasis on the grasping of concepts related to IL rather than a set of rigid and prescriptive skills. This has had a dramatic effect on how librarians develop and conduct assessment. The framework is heavily based on Meyer and Land’s (2011) Threshold Concepts theory that emphasizes the importance of concepts that once grasped by the learner, create new perspectives and ways of understanding a discipline or challenging knowledge domain. The grasping of these concepts produce transformation within the learner, allowing the learner to think like an expert or practitioner.
The new framework and its emphasis on threshold concepts has had an immense impact on assessment and library instructions. Librarians are beginning to move away from assessing students’ ability to learn a set of rigid skills. Rather, library instructors are now using tools like performance assessment or self assessment which emphasize the students’ ability or inability to grasp broad concepts. With tools like self assessment students become conscious of the research strategies, critical thinking steps, and other transferable skills that they employ to complete an assignment. Additionally, emphasis is placed on self-reflection and internalization of the use and value of specific skills allowing the students to think as a practitioner. Lastly, it goes beyond simple analysis of the final product and assesses the decisions students encounter and make while completing an assignment and why they make certain choices (Gilchrist and Oakleaf, 2012).
With self-assessment and performance assessment instruction librarians teaching students to use maker kits in the library classes can better assess students’ ability to deal with and use maker kits in new and creative ways. Here the emphasis would be on the process and train of thought more so than the end product. I say this largely because I feel that measuring or assessing creativity in a quantifiable and structured manner is very difficult. Although, I do not believe it to be impossible, unlike some prominent educators (e.g. Grant Wiggins) I do not agree that instructors can “recognize creative thinking immediately when we see it” (Wiggins, 2012). It is my humble opinion that Wiggins wrongly postulates that instructors have the ability to consistently discern what is an is not creative when assessing student work. Creativity and what is deemed creative, is an extremely subjective matter that is heavily influenced by various external factors.
To assume, as Wiggins does, that the “right criteria” and “multiple & varied exemplars” is all that is necessary to create rubrics or assessment tools that can quantifiably measure creativity, is an oversimplification of the matter. The focus for assessment of maker education, should be shifted from an evaluation of the end product to an evaluation of the process.
Association for College and Research Libraries. (2015). Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. Retrieved from ACRL website:http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework
Gilchrist, D., & Oakleaf, M. (2012). An essential partner: the librarian’s role in student learning assessment. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment: Occasional Paper, 14.
Meyer, J., Land, R., & Baillie, C. (2010). Threshold concepts and transformational learning. Rotterdam; Boston: Sense Pub.
Oakleaf, M. (2014). A Roadmap for Assessing Student Learning Using the New Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(5), 510-514.
Week 11 and it is time to turn the heat up. This week in CEP811, we have been asked to design a multimodal infographic on maker education by selecting a specific theme to focus on. The theme I decided to select was ‘why MakerEd is beneficial for libraries and library users’. One of the inherent challenges of creating an infographic is designing a visual representation of information that limits the use of text and words. My infographic focuses on how libraries and librarians must shift from viewing users as passive consumers on information to individuals who are in control of the learning process. Moreover, libraries can no longer function as repositories where information is only consumed and librarians are the gatekeepers of the information. Librarians must begin to look at encouraging creativity and innovation through things like maker spaces, where learners can experiment, create and develop. To see my infographic please use the following link. Below you will see the sources I have used to create my infographic. These sources can also function as resources to help librarians in the task of further understanding the topic of maker education and maker spaces in libraries.
References
Association for College and Research Libraries. (1999). Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Retrieved from ACRL http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency.
Blackburn, H. (2010). Shhh! No talking about retention in the library!. Education Libraries, 33(1), 24.
Colegrove, T. (2013). Editorial board thoughts: Libraries as makerspace? Information Technology and Libraries (Online), 32(1), 2.
Edwards, Julie Biando;Robinson, Melissa S.;Unger, Kelley Rae. (2013).Transforming Libraries, Building Communities. Scarecrow Press. Retrieved 17 April 2015, from <http://www.myilibrary.com.ezproxy.aus.edu?ID=486554>
Gwyer, R., Stubbings, R., & Walton, G. (Eds.). (2012). The Road to Information Literacy: Librarians as facilitators of learning (Vol. 157). Walter de Gruyter.
Kurti, R. S., Kurti, D. L., & Fleming, L. (2014). The philosophy of educational makerspaces part 1 of making an educational makerspace. Teacher Librarian, 41(5), 8.
O’Beirne, R. (2012). From lending to learning: A journey from mass literacy to personalized learning. Australasian Public Libraries and Information Services, 25(4), 201.
Sheridan, K., Halverson, E., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. HARVARD EDUCATIONAL REVIEW, 84(4), 505-531
For this week’s CEP811 class we have been asked to examine a familiar learning space and evaluate the space using ‘21st century eyes’. The aim is to think about how this space functions and whether it functions appropriately for today’s modern context. In light of this, I have decided to choose one of the two classes/labs (i.e. named IC1) we use at the American University of Sharjah’s (AUS) Library for teaching Information Literacy classes. However, before I can delve into the assignment, I must declare that my assignment may look very different than that of my classmates. This is due to the fact that the library’s classes have been recently updated and therefore reflect the present learning and instructional needs of students and librarians. In fact, these classes are what I would consider to be the model for a quintessential class for teaching Information Literacy.
Before we discuss the layout of the class and its functionality, I would like to give you the reader some background information so as to provide context. AUS has approximately 4800 undergraduate students. The general education requirements of the University, requires all first-year students to attend two one-shot library sessions as part of two mandatory writing composition courses (i.e. WRI102 and ENG204). These library sessions are delivered by instruction librarians. In light of this, the library currently houses two classes (IC1 and IC2) to be used exclusively for library sessions.
When the library’s two classes where constructed, the design and layout was very much dictated by the needs of the library and the stakeholders involved, including the course instructor, students and the librarians. IC1 is an extremely well designed and functional classroom, where the focus is very much the needs of the modern university student/library user. One of the major aims of designing a functional layout, was to avoid an instructor focused space, where all desks face forward towards the front of the class. To circumvent this, desks have been placed in a modified horseshoe pattern. This pattern allows the librarian to easily walk around the classroom, assisting students and allowing for greater interaction and participation. As information literacy classes almost always require the use of a computer and the internet, each student and the librarian have access to a personal desktop computer. In addition to providing access to the internet, the instructor’s desktop allows the librarian to demonstrate tools and resources and lecture, while content is projected via a projector on to a large screen at the front of the class. While the librarian demonstrates, students are able to observe, listen and trial things for themselves using their personal desktop computers. The layout of the class also ensures that all desktops are visible to the librarian, allowing one to monitor students, assist those that are struggling or straying and circulate unimpeded. In addition, this open layout provides the opportunity for the librarian to function as a facilitator, helping students through the learning process. Lastly, the position of the doorway has also been carefully and intentionally considered. The placement of the doorway at the back of the class guarantees that students are not distracted by individuals that enter the classroom late, a reality that cannot be avoided when dealing with young adults.
To provide you with an idea of the layout of the class, please see this floor plan of IC1 I have drawn up using the SketchUp Layout Tool. I have also designed a hollow 3D drawing of the class. This only includes the instructor’s desk and computer and the projector and screen. This will give you an idea of the size and orientation of the class. Please see the following: IC1 Classroom 3D RenderingIC1 – Class Layout
For this week’s assignment I would like to present and share a lesson plan I have designed specifically for academic librarians teaching in universities that have a faculty of education. My lesson plan is a byproduct of the work I have been doing in my CEP 811 course, as part of my MAET program at MSU. As part of this course, I have been experimenting with the MaKey MaKey kit and have been thinking about how academic librarians can take advantage of such kits in library instruction. In light of this, I have developed a lesson plan specifically for a one-shot library sessions aimed at teaching future educators about the maker movement, maker kits and how these can be incorporated into the classroom environment to encourage metaliteracy.
In his Tedx Talk entitled Reimagining Learning, Richard Culatta (2013) introduces several specific concepts related to learning in our modern digital age. One of these concepts is the idea of personalized learning. It is this concept that I have decided to focus on for this week’s blog post. The concept of personalized learning has been on the radar of academic libraries for quite some time now. Indeed, academic libraries have begun to move away from the one size fits all approach to information literacy instruction, moving instead towards services and programs that focus on the specific and context-specific needs of students and faculty.
With approaches such as embedded librarianship, librarians are able to employ a model in their instruction that helps them overcome the limitations of the “one-shot” library instruction class. This model takes the librarian out of the context of the traditional library and places him/her in a setting that encourages close coordination and collaboration with teaching faculty. Thus librarians can demonstrate their expertise as information specialists and apply this expertise in ways that will have a context specific impact on the teaching. In this scenario the librarian moves from a supporting role into one that emphasizes a partnership with faculty, enabling librarians to develop strong connections and relationships with users.
In an article entitled From Lending to Learning: A Journey From Mass Literacy to Personalized Learning, Ronan O’Beirne (2012) Director of Learning Development at Bradford College in the UK, argues that Libraries should champion knowledge and the acquisition of knowledge in all its many formats. The crux of O’Beirne’s argument is the notion that libraries, especially public libraries, should shift their focus from defending their existence visa a vie the items they house, and focus on facilitating personalized learning for individuals. In a study conducted in a community setting where personalized learning was encouraged, supported by a public library and with the aid of technology, learners were far more self-sufficient and able than expected. Her study found that the more prescriptive the content of their learning the less engaged the learners became. Conversely, when the learners were allowed to drive and dictate the content, they remained highly engaged. Her conclusion is that ideally instructors should play a facilitative role in the learning process and by doing so can manage to allow for personalized learning on a larger scale. O’Beirne is convinced that education is in a state of flux and this state provides an opportunity for informal deregulated education, where personalized learning is feasible. She further asserts that the rise of technology has created a new set of opportunities for places like academic libraries. Technology she explains has shifted the control over knowledge production and consumption from the college or university, into the hands of the learner. This has had profound implications for librarians, who can no longer view themselves as the gatekeepers moderating access to information. As learners begin to take control of learning, O’Beirne is confident that a more personalized approach to learning will dominate.
Stephen Powell, Ian Tindal and Richard Millwood (2008) discuss a model of personalized work-integrated learning designed to suit the needs of students who are working and not able or willing to leave their jobs to continue post-secondary education. In a paper entitled Personalized Learning and the Ultraversity Experience the authors describe and analyze Ultraversity, a three year undergraduate degree program set up by the Ultralab at Anglia Rushkin University. The project was devised to research new approaches to learning in Higher Education Institutions. The courses for the program were designed specifically to provide a highly personalized and collaborative experience for students. By working together and moving through the program in a cohort, students engage in the process of learning together and are able to collaborate and support one another. The aim of the project was to move beyond the ‘safer option’ of blended learning and provide a fully online program in order to reach students for whom blended learning was not a possibility. In this program learners were able to take control of the learning process by identifying subject knowledge relevant to their own context and needs, through a process of negotiation with teaching staff. The process involved developing a set of Individual learning plans or inquiry proposals. Surveys of student showed an overwhelming number felt personalization was a significant feature of the program. The author found that facilitated online communities can be used to support deep learning that is focused on action inquiry. Analysis of the Ultraversity project determined that providing students with a high-level freedom and personalization was a powerful motivational and creative force. However, the researchers found that to develop and foster such an environment requires the support of various actors and a range of software designed to support a learning community.
In both of the articles summarized above it is evident that student- driven learning environments can be successful if the proper support is provided to learners. This support can come in various forms and usually includes the instructor acting as a facilitator to the learning process, rather than the gatekeeper of knowledge and information. The very same can be said for Maker Education in which the aim of the instructor is to act as a guide, pointing the way, yet allowing the student’s creativity to guide what he/she will create or develop using the tools at hand.
O’Beirne, R. (2012). From lending to learning: A journey from mass literacy to personalized learning. Australasian Public Libraries and Information Services, 25(4), 201.
Tindal, I., Millwood, R., & Powell, S. (2008). Personalized learning and the Ultraversity experience. Interactive Learning Environments, 16(1), 63-81. doi:10.1080/10494820701772710
So ends week 2 of my CEP 811 course for the MAET program at MSU, and it has been an eventful week to say the least. For this week I was tasked with visiting either a thrift, consignment or surplus shop to purchase some inexpensive items that could be repurposed for an assignment. If this was not viable, we were asked to take a trip to our basements or attics to find items for repurposing. However, because I live in the UAE, these options were not available to me. My home does not have a garage and because I am an expat, living in housing provided to me, I really have very few belongings of my own. So I had to make the best of what was around me. I decided to use what I had in my office (please see images). After finding some objects that could be repurposed, we were asked to create something that brought together our maker kits, repurposed/found materials and teaching practice in a way that I could use in my classroom/teaching context. This is when the true challenge began.
Let me begin by telling you a little more about the maker kit I selected for CEP 811. The kit I decided to purchase is called the MaKey MaKey. MaKey Makey is a kit designed to help you turn everyday objects into touchpads and keys and combines them with the internet. The kit is meant for beginners, but can also be used by experts, interested in creating unique projects. The possibilities of what can be done with MaKey MaKey are almost limitless, as one is only limited by one’s imagination. The kit consists of: a circuit board (i.e. the MaKey MaKey), USB Cable, Alligator Clips, Connector Wires and Instructions (please see images).
The concept behind the kit is extremely simple. When the MaKey Makey is connected to your computer, via USB, it is recognized as a keyboard or mouse. The alligator clips provided allow you to clip inanimate objects to the circuit board, making those objects part of the circuit. For example, if you decide to connect a spoon to the MaKey Makey, when you touch the spoon you create a circuit, and MaKey MaKey sends the computer a keyboard message. Thus this kit allows you to control things on your computer, via the inanimate object, and is meant to encourage people to find creative ways to use everyday objects as a replacement for keyboards and mice.
I began the week by testing the kit and playing around with it. I must admit the first time I opened the kit, I was immediately intimidated. I have never really been a tinkerer and seeing a piece of technology that was so bare bones made me a little nervous. So much of what we use today is covered in plastic and we rarely get a chance to see the internals. Makey Makey is essentially a naked piece of technology where wires and circuits are all visible. However, with the use of the provided instructions and various online tutorials, I was able to connect various everyday objects to the MaKey Makey and manipulate websites, webpages, games and virtual instruments. To be honest, I quickly realized that learning to use the kit was the easy part. The challenge began when I started to think about how I could incorporate this kit into my classroom.
One of the biggest hurdles to incorporating a maker kit into my classes is the subject that I teach. As an Academic Instruction Librarian, the focus of our classes is information literacy. Information literacy (IL) according to the American Library Association (1989) is the “ability to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information”. These skills are taught to students in a very specific context and within specific parameters. The aim is to provide students the skills needed to effectively research at a university level. With this in mind, I was having difficulty understanding how I could incorporate the use of my maker kit into an IL class. Therefore, I decided to do a little research to investigate how other academic libraries were using such kits and if this could provide me with some ideas.
Recently, academic libraries have begun to take an active role in providing students with maker spaces and encouraging making and experimentation. Many of these maker spaces include 3D printing services, multimedia production studios as well as a number of different services and tools including maker kits. Often, these spaces are used by students specializing in the STEM disciplines. However, kits like the Makey Makey are also being used by students in the field of education. Many students completing their Bachelors of Education or Masters of Education, find such tools extremely useful for designing lessons that incorporate the use of technology, or more broadly for understanding how technology can be used in a classroom context. Additionally, the use of such kits is also being encouraged due to a growing interest in metaliteracy. Metaliteracy is a framework that emphasizes the empowerment of learners via participation in interactive information environments, equipped with the ability to continuously reflect, change, and contribute as critical thinkers (Association for College and Research Libraries, 2015).
It became clear to me that incorporating the use of the maker kit in my own classroom would be nearly impossible. So I had to think outside the box and I quickly saw an opportunity. I realized that as an instruction librarian I could work towards helping others (e.g. future educators) to understand how to use such a kit and how it could be incorporated into a class to enhance the learning experience and to encourage metaliteracy. Moreover, I have quickly realized that such kits are inexpensive tools that could be purchased by an academic library and made available to library patrons for use and borrowing. However, the use of such tools necessitates the creation of tools and resources that would aid potential use of maker kits. These resources need not be complicated and could consist of simple guides that contain instructions or even links to existing online tutorials that could assist potential users.
A potential tool for creating an instructional guide for a maker kit is a product librarians use often, called LibGuides. LibGuides is a cloud-based software that provides librarians a means to gather information and present it in an organized, easy-to-access manner. Use of the software requires little technical knowledge, making it extremely simple to create and manipulate instructional guides for things like maker kits. Maker kits could be loaned out to library patrons with a link to the LibGuide provided alongside the kit.
Along with the LibGuide, a useful tool is the MIT Media Lab’s Scratch. Scratch is a project of the Lifelong Kindergarten Group and was designed to allow educators to demonstrate how to do basic programming by creating interactive stories, games, and animations online. Using my Makey Makey kit, I was able to manipulate an animated character in Scratch (see video), controlling its movements, sounds and speech with my makers kit. With this tool educators could easily incorporate valuable lessons about engineering, electronics and programming into the classroom context.
In summation, I have realized that I cannot currently effectively incorporate the use of the Makey Makey or a maker kit into my own classroom context. However, I can work towards assisting library patrons, in the filed of education to understand how to use such tools to enhance their own teaching.
Association for College and Research Libraries. (2015). Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. Retrieved from ACRL website: http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework
The first week of my CEP 811 course has begun with an assignment that asks students to make use of Mozilla Popcorn Maker. Popcorn Maker is a GUI that allows users to enhance, remix and share web videos (Mozilla Wiki, 2012). The theme of this week’s class revolves around the idea of remixing and the notion that so much of the media developed and consumed in our digital age is a remix of media that preceded it. For this week’s assignment students were asked to select a video with a Creative Commons license and remix it with the intention of creating a video that represents some aspect of Maker Culture.
I began this assignment by creating a Popcorn account and then attempted to fiddle around with the software. My intention was to learn how the product worked through some trial and error. This being my first remix, I uploaded one of my own personal YouTube videos and attempted to remix it. I was of course limited by the fact that I knew nothing about Popcorn Maker prior to embarking on this project. Nevertheless, some aspects of the software looked familiar, since I often use Camtasia (a video editing and screen capture software) to develop instructional tutorials. In Popcorn I noticed that the video timeline and the layers function looked very similar to Camtasia. However, sometime into trialing Popcorm I could progress no further, and I began to seek out virtual tutorials on how to use the program. I found a number of introductory instructional videos on YouTube that walked novices like myself through the process of using the software.
It was now time to select a video and begin remixing it. With the assignment parameters in mind, I began seeking out a video to remix. I chose to look through the Prelinger Archives, which offers a large list of old videos that have Creative Commons licenses. While browsing the videos in a very random fashion, I stumbled upon a video entitled Atomic Bomb, which according to archives was created ca. 1955. As someone who is working with copyright law frequently, I realized immediately that the age of the movie meant that it was now in the public domain and was no longer restricted by copyright law (Fisher, 2015).
The movie which has a run time of 7.26 minutes was uploaded to the archives by a user named Bonica (Joe) and depicts the atomic bomb testing carried out in Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The movie’s subject matter immediately struck me as relevant and meaningful. When completing the weekly readings for the course I remember thinking about the very positive way in which the act of making was being depicted. In his Ted Talk, Dale Doughetry (2011) discusses how the act of making has helped spark new industries and how making is an intrinsic human trait. Yet, he never touches upon the negative consequences of this need to make and the issue of ethics. This brought me to the realization that as humans our ability to invent, be creative and make has led us to develop technologies that not only make life easy and enjoyable, but conversely also assist in the act of destruction. What better example of this than the atom bomb, the ultimate technology developed to eradicate life.
When remixing the video, I intended to take the contents of the video and highlight this idea of the destructive capability of making. Although the video was initially intended to serve an educational purpose, and often depicts that subject matter in a positive or neutral light, I wanted to change this. As an instructor, I often feel obliged to speak to my students about the idea of ethics, especially in a world where technology develops so rapidly, with little thought given to how it may impact the world around us. It is with this as my inspiration that I created the following remix. Textual information in the blog was largely derived from Wikipedia articles on Bikini Atoll and Nuclear Weapons Testing.
Dougherty, D (2011, January). Dale Dougherty: We are makers [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/dale_dougherty_we_are_makers/transcript?language=en
Fisher, W.W. (2015). Copyright. In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from http://academic.eb.com.ezproxy.aus.edu/EBchecked/topic/136956/copyright.
This week during a religious holiday here in the UAE, my wife and I had the good fortune to travel to Indonesia. While travelling I had an epiphany of sorts. Although I have travelled quite frequently to South Asia, this was my first time visiting a country in Southeast Asia. To be honest the one thing keeping me from travelling to Southeast Asia earlier was fear. Although I had once assumed that I was immune to culture shock, I quickly realized that it was nothing more than culture shock that had held me back from travelling to this part of the world sooner. What I feared was a culture so different from what I was familiar with, that I would have no idea about how to navigate in this new environment. How would we get around, what would we eat, what would we see, how would we communicate were all questions I was contemplating before our arrival. Now it’s not like I don’t have these questions when I visit any other place, it’s just that Southeast Asia was very different to the places I was familiar with and this lack of familiarity caused fear. I realized that no matter how seasoned of a traveller I perceived myself to be, fear was holding me back. This fear of the unknown or of a lack of control could have prevented me from seeing a place that literally took my breath away. Since returning I have realized that this same fear of the unknown or a lack of control can also hold you back from trying new things as an instructor, and this is often true when it comes to working with or integrating technology into the classroom experience.
According to some definitions of the term, I fit the mold of an individual who would be classified as a millennial. As such, there is an expectation that the use of technology and being comfortable with technology in all parts of one’s life comes naturally to an individual from my generation. I have never felt comfortable with this view and as someone who straddles the line (i.e. the start date) for what is considered a millennial, I have often thought that I am the type of person that is just as comfortable with the ‘old school’ or manual methods as with the digital. I think that this gives me an upper hand in the classroom and I don’t always feel the need to use technology if a simpler or ‘old school’ method is available. Conversely, if I find a technology that I think could be helpful or useful for a specific task, I am not averse to experimenting.
In my CEP810 course, I was able to not only think about how to use technology in a smart way in a classroom environment, but I had the opportunity to use various types of technologies to complete assignments and exercises. I have always been a fan of experiential learning and this course allowed me to experience how technologies could be used effectively to enhance the learning process. At times I was forced to leave my comfort zone and try technologies I would have otherwise not considered. This I believe was one of the biggest takeaways from the course. Technologies are not always designed with the classroom or education in mind. However, with some thought and creativity technologies can be repurposed for an educational or classroom context.
In addition to learning about how to use technologies in the classroom, I believe I learned a great deal about the role of the instructor in a learning process that involves technology. In the PLN assignment we were forced to proceed and learn a new skill without the guidance of an instructor. Although an instructor cannot always be present throughout the learning process, it is important that a student has the foundational skills that will allow him or her to proceed with evaluating and using reliable resources. In our digital age where masses of information are available to us, it is extremely important that students have the Information Literacy skills to recognize when and what information is need and then to locate, evaluate, and use this information effectively.
The biggest concern I have going into the rest of my MAET program at MSU, revolves around the issue of students’ assumptions regarding the effective use of technology. Being millennials and living in an age where technology permeates every aspect of our lives, many students assume that they understand how to use technology without the need for instruction or guidance. If the technology has a steep learning curve, it is often dismissed as not being user friendly or efficient enough. In an academic library context, students will often abandon powerful academic databases for Google simply because they lack the skills required to use the databases efficiently. I hope that through the process of completing my MAET, I will begin to gather some strategies about how to help students relinquish this type of thinking and embrace the idea that intuitive or user friendly does not always equate to simple or basic.
So for this assignment entitled ‘cooking with TPACK’, in my CEP 810, I decided to complete the weekly activity, before watching the lecture. This really helped in avoiding any preconceived expectations. The experience led to some really cool results, and allowed me to proceed without over-thinking.
I recorded my video in my hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia, where I am residing for a short vacation. Not having a kitchen was tricky, as one’s own personal kitchen functions as a tool and resource in and of itself. Moreover, your personal kitchen is conformable and familiar, something that can really help an individual attempting to complete a task. I had none of this. I was forced to use what I had at my disposal and had to have my wife record the video as there was nothing to rest my phone on while recording. Additionally, I had to be aware of the hotel employees and guests around me, in order not to offend anyone. Nevertheless, I completed the task.
What I learned was incredibly insightful for such a simple activity. The biggest lesson I took away, is one that Dr. Mishra points out several times in his lecture at the 21st Century Learning Conference. It revolves around this idea of repurposing tools for use in educational contexts. The spoon I was forced to use to spread butter, was not made for spreading, but I had to work around this and think about how it could be made to work. Often most technologies are not specifically designed for educational purposes, but as instructions we have the ability to repurpose technology for our own classroom contexts. In a classroom context this repurposing allows the instructor to function as a mediator and facilitator.
MAET: My Journey 