#UWinDig 2020

Here’s a scenario: you want to implement technology into a lesson, but you find that you’re stuck.

If you’re interested in integrating technology into your lessons, then the Technologist module provided by Ontario Extend may be useful to you. In the module, one technique of technology integration is suggested by way of design thinking.

What is design thinking? I created a simple infographic, with a template thanks to Piktochart, that summarizes the steps of design thinking and how they relate to technology integration in the classroom.

There are 5 steps in design thinking: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and connect. You begin with the empathize step by setting out and determining as many learning challenges as you can in the classroom, then look for spaces where technology could help you out. Then you define what you’d like to address and narrow your focus. Ideate by matching a tool to your challenge and begin to prepare an activity. Prototype the activity and put it into practice, then use the experience to assess the activity’s strengths and weaknesses. Finally, after refining your activity, connect it to a broader context in your curriculum. Connect the technology to your learning goals and implement the activity.

Giving my own take on this, I think this method is useful but I wouldn’t feel comfortable using it exactly as prescribed. When I think about applying technology into my classroom, I tend to start with learning goals that are in the curriculum or in my lesson – the things that must be covered or the things that I aim to cover- and see how I can modify and enhance them with different representations. In other words, I tend to prefer to set end-goals or clear learning destinations that I then work towards. The method of integration outlined in this module seems to start from an intentionally open and large field, the challenges of the learners, and then incrementally refines that field towards a solution that meets the learners’ goals. The danger that may arise from this method of technology integration is that by not firmly incorporating the connections to the curriculum, there is a risk to miss the mark.

I think one should also be wary of creating a dream-list of ideal features that a digital tool may have – while this is useful to to outline exactly what you’re looking for, there may not be a tool that fits your parameters. In some cases, it may be more efficient to take the inverted approach and start with a tool, asking yourself, “Okay, what can I do with this?”

However, I don’t mean to imply that there are no strengths here – certainly, when one is thinking about incorporating technology for a lesson, you must make an active effort to meet the learning needs of your students. A hybrid approach where one keeps learning goals in mind along with learning needs can help you reach your students while keeping focus on results. Additionally, the Define and Prototype steps are powerful ideas to incorporate in lesson design.

Ultimately, I think some of this comes down to preference. Some might like to start with end-goals and some might like to start with many ideas, refining them down and seeing where they’re taken. This method of design thinking can address different kinds of problems and open your mind to different solutions in lesson design.

Sources:
Figure 1: Infographic provided by Piktochart.
Figure 2: Image taken from
https://www.krusecontrolinc.com/study-social-marketers-missing-the-mark-on-consumer-content-preferences/
Figure 3: Image taken from
https://www.liberaldictionary.com/choose/
Figure 4: Image taken from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Checkmark.svg

Hello! For this Multimedia Reflection, I chose to respond to Ashley Hinck’s article, “Digital Ghosts in the Modern Classroom”, with the sketchnote format.

In the course of this post, I’ll talk about the article and relate it directly to the sketchnote I created, which you can see directly below:

The sketchnote shares the same title as Hinck’s article and is broken up into three main sections. First, the upper left section discusses template platforms and ends with a problem. Second, the section to the right discusses tools that provide more freedom and creativity and promote openness in creation, but also ends with a problem. Finally, the third section is near the bottom, attempting to address the remaining concerns.

The article takes a critical look at platforms and tools that assist in the creation of digital artifacts using a template or “shortcut” method of composition. Typically these kinds of tools have drag-and-drop interfaces that interact with some sort of template, and some examples provided by Hinck include Canva or Blogger. These tools are designed so that they are easy to use to create some artifact with little risk of failure. In order to provide this kind of service, these platforms provide an easy set of steps that are foolproof; all the user must do is follow the prescription and they can’t get it wrong.

The problem with these template platforms, as Hinck argues, is that because they are designed to be easy to use, they are rigid. Their specialization forces them into producing very particular kinds of artifacts and as a result can become detrimental to true creative expression. Additionally, the more a user uses template platforms, the more that template takes hold of them and shapes the kinds of creations they make, so that there becomes a danger where creative expressions are made in the image of the template.

An additional problem that comes from template platforms is that they will only take your creative endeavours so far; the tools are easily mastered and are quickly worn out. So what is it that we do?

As a result, these kinds of tools or platforms are more difficult to use, and students are prone to fail on their first few attempts. Additionally, the use of template platforms can come to haunt the student! They shape the student’s perception of expression and create a disconnect between the expectations they bring to open platforms from template platforms and the effort required to create artifacts.

Hinck suggests that we normalize the sort of trial and error process that is necessary to master these open platforms and to reduce frustration in using them. We shouldn’t expect to nail down wonderful expressions of our creativity on our first attempt, nor even the next few tries. Even if we are frustrated in creating these artifacts, we must keep in mind that this work is the necessary cost to create a true expression that rewards and empowers us. We should work towards banishing the ghosts of templates that haunt us.

In my history as an undergraduate student in physics (and later in my Master’s), I greatly valued template platforms because assignments typically required me to use them to complete the assignments in a reasonable amount of time. A frequent example is that I had to give many presentations and I always found myself gravitated towards something like PowerPoint. Often I was in some evaluative setting that only valued the scientific content in my presentations and the way I presented myself, which I didn’t necessarily have any problems with. In these kinds of cases, I think worrying about some novel presentation of scientific ideas would actually have been detrimental, because the pedagogical value in these settings was, “Can you talk about this topic that you’ve researched?” and I often liked to present these scientific ideas as simply as I could. There was no need to re-invent the wheel, so-to-speak. Trying to become comfortable with some of these open platforms often requires many hours of work and practice, which makes it difficult to use them in practice as a novice when the assignment you need to complete is due in a week.

However, I do not mean to say that this idea of focusing on open platforms would not have been irrelevant to me. In fact, there were times where I needed to create something on Google SketchUp or GIMP for some sort of report. In my Master’s thesis, I had to create my own diagrams because I wanted to avoid issues of citation with other authors, or there was no suitable template of representation I could use. So I was forced to try my hand at working with vector graphics software like Inkscape, and when I got the hang of it, it felt good that I could create what I wanted. I think it is good to keep the criticisms of template platforms in the back of one’s mind at all times, and, when the time permits, to strive towards working with platforms that encourage openness and experimentation.