Everything interacts. Always. We shape it. It shapes us. It’s all a big soup.
As a teacher-librarian, I’m constantly making decisions about which databases to subscribe to, which search tools to recommend, which encyclopedias to point students toward. These decisions often get framed as “neutral” by just providing access to information, offering students “the right resources.” But are they?
This question started nagging at me during IP 2 where I analyzed software encyclopedias through McLuhan’s tetrad and Actor-Network Theory. I decided to test something simple: I searched for two controversial topics across different encyclopedia subscriptions our division provides to students. The results weren’t just different—they were fundamentally different.
I sat there staring at two browser windows, and something clicked: this wasn’t a bug. This was a feature. Each platform was enacting a specific epistemology, a particular idea of what knowledge is. And my choice (as a librarian, and as someone who shapes student access to information) wasn’t neutral at all. I was choosing between worlds, while selling the guise of neutrality.
Why start with search?
When it came time to get to brass tacks on this assignment, I knew I needed an entry point that was practical. Not abstract. Not Barad discussing quantum entanglement — even though it’s fascinating.
Because it seems to me like if we want people to think outside of the box, we need them to realize that the tools they hardly think of as technological have been quietly organizing how knowledge appears to us for a very long time. They’re quietly working in the background; and their output exposes what’s going on behind the scenes. I think this is what makes them a great place to start unpacking the complexity of ideas behind new materialism.
How the elements came together
So I designed a professional learning activity: choose a heated topic, search it in three different tools (Google, Wikipedia, TikTok), and compare what appears. Then unpack: How does each tool assemble knowledge?
I think the session would ultimately take about two hours to work through with a group, but could probably be done in an hour and a half. I have embedded audio files into the presentation with my speakers notes, but have also linked them here if you would rather read them. My presentation slides are directly below.
If you’re an educational technology specialist, a teacher, an administrator or if you make decisions about which tools students use, which platforms teachers adopt, which systems organize learning, I’m inviting you to do something simple:
Pick a controversial topic. Search it in three different places. Compare what appears.
Then ask: What differences did this technology create?
It’s not a complicated activity. But I think it’s a critical and worthwhile one.
Because once you see how Google, Wikipedia, and TikTok assemble knowledge differently, you can’t unsee it. And that’s where the real work begins.
Not in finding the “right” tool. Not in establishing “best practices.” But in developing the literacy to read how tools shape what we can know, and the responsibility to choose—and keep questioning our choices—accordingly.
Media ecology is the study of how media and technology function as environments that shape human perception, communication, and understanding. It looks not just at content, but at the structures and systems we build and are surrounded by, from language to smartphones, and how they shape what we can think, say, and do. Like an ecosystem, these media interact with one another and with us, constantly reshaping our cultural and intellectual “habitat.” Media ecology asks the right questions because it recognizes that anything that impacts our communication or interaction provides limits and biases to what is possible. Without recognizing the impact of these impositions we risk mistaking the shape of our media environment for the shape of reality itself.
This definition aligns with Strate’s (2000, as cited in Strate and Lum, 2020) argument that media ecology is a perspective; “a way of seeing”—that treats media as environments rather than just channels. Neil Postman (as cited in Lum, 2000) similarly calls media ecology “the study of the cultural consequences of media change that affects our social organization, cognitive habits, and political ideas” (p. 4). In other words, it is not enough to examine what media say; we must examine what they make possible and what they make difficult to imagine.
Strate and Lum (2000) situate media ecology within a tradition that is ecological, interdisciplinary, and activist, drawing on Patrick Geddes’ view that intellectuals must act as shapers of environments, not just observers (p. 60). This implies that media ecology cannot belong neatly to one discipline. It is necessarily intersectional, combining insights from communication studies, history, sociology, semiotics, and philosophy. Thinking ecologically means remembering that, as Miller (1989) puts it, “no living organism can be understood except in terms of the total environment in which it functioned” (as cited in Strate & Lum, 2000, p. 68).
Mumford’s historical schema illustrates how environments structure society over time. His three phases—eotechnic, paleotechnic, and neotechnic—mark shifts from renewable energy to industrial extraction to machine-human symbiosis, with each stage reorganizing labor, power, and social classes (Strate & Lum, 2000, pp. 63–65). These phases demonstrate that technological environments are not neutral: they define the “rules of the game” for entire cultures.
Lum (2000) further explains that media have both physical and symbolic dimensions, each with distinct biases. These biases can be temporal, spatial, sensory, political, social, metaphysical, or epistemological (p. 2). To do media ecology is to surface these biases and ask what forms of knowledge, attention, and relationship they enable—and which they foreclose. This is why media ecology “asks the right questions.” It does not merely catalog media; it interrogates how each medium privileges some possibilities and silences others.
Model of Educational Media Ecology
A still of my completed vision of educational media ecology.
References
Lum, C. M. K. (2000). Introduction: The intellectual roots of media ecology. New Jersey Journal of Communication, 8(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870009367375
Strate, L., & Lum, C. M. K. (2000). Lewis Mumford and the ecology of technics. New Jersey Journal of Communication, 8(1), 56–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870009367379
Okay, so my video is a bit longer than 5 minutes, but I swear there’s a reason! My video tour is presented as a mock news segment with Artie Smarts, an animated robot newscaster. I went with this format to keep things conversational and fun while still walking through the project in detail, drawing on Mayer’s (2009) personalization principle to show that professional learning can be engaging as well as practical. The playful opening, a few jokes, and the closing segment were all part of setting that tone and holding attention — though they do push the video slightly past the suggested runtime. I was having a lot of fun making it (using a combination of Adobe Express, Apple Clips, and CapCut), and I hope that comes through when you watch.
Sometimes you plan something and follow your itinerary to the letter; other times, despite your best intentions, another path calls to you and you end up going in a completely different direction. Such was the case with my learning throughout ETEC 524. In hindsight, it’s probably not surprising that my main work ended up focusing on AI and educators; it is a topic I’ve been almost obsessively engaged with for the past two years. But this was not where I initially set out to go in May.
My original goal was to outline and begin developing a hybrid online/classroom course for Grade 11/12 students, centred on skill development and mastery in an area of their choice. I’ve long wanted to create space for students who are not drawn to more traditional academic programming to pursue a deep dive into something meaningful to them. However, as the course unfolded, I shifted toward building a professional development module for educators in my school division. This shift came partly from recognizing the immediate usefulness of such a resource, and partly from seeing an opportunity to help teachers design more accessible, less cluttered Edsby environments for their students.
When I compared my initial and final projects, I noticed that both aimed at the same underlying challenge: addressing crucial shortcomings in current pedagogical models. The difference was that the PD module would allow me to act on these ideas sooner and in a context where I could model thoughtful technology use for colleagues as well as students. That reframing not only changed the direction of my final assignment, but also reframed how I now think about my role as a teacher-librarian — not just supporting student learning directly, but shaping the digital spaces and professional practices that make deeper learning possible.
I suppose we always live in ‘interesting times’, but the phrase seems particularly apropos of our current moment. Large Language Model tools, economic models that incentivize the capture of our attention and data, and political dialogue are currently shaking the foundation of what it means to learn, and therefore what it means to teach. I leave this course with many great resources to strengthen my toolbox, but also quite a few existential questions about where we move on from here.
In terms of resources, several were especially important in shaping my thinking throughout the course. I’m always one for an acronym, and Bates’ (2015) SECTIONS model and its clear breakdown of considerations for technology selection was a very helpful frame. I still struggle with it in some ways, but only because I see that it may lead organizations to prioritize immediate cost over sustainability. Of course, this is a systemic issue. Planned obsolescence, increasing energy demands, and security and privacy issues create a scenario where tech requires frequent updating and replacement, while the majority of companies that have significant interest in developing hardware and software run on a model of infinite profit and growth. This results in devices where parts can’t be swapped out, or where our data is traded like a commodity. Fighting against this means using open source or older technologies that require more in-house tech support, and often significantly less ease of use. I can’t help but worry that we’re paying out of our future for ease of use today.
Outcome development and assessment was another area of growth for me. Given my role in the public school system, I am much more familiar with assessing by outcomes that have been provided to me, rather than creating those outcomes myself. My part one of my second assignment showed my weakness in that area. Assessing for PD learning rather than an academic course was something that I hadn’t really thought about. In most of my school-based PD learning experience, assessment seems to boil down to your name being on the attendance sheet, or (for online modules), a series of automatically graded multiple choice and true/false questions that staff often did as a group. But we know that simply being in the room isn’t learning something, and that tests generally only measure lower-order skills (Mazur, 2013). As such, Mazur’s suggestions to improve assessment by mimicking real life, focusing on feedback not ranking, and assessing skills rather than content were especially useful, and I tried to mindfully incorporate them into the activities I planned in my unit. His fourth point about resolving the coach/judge conflict is tricky for online learning especially, as instructors are often spread more thinly. For older users, peer and self-assessment can be a useful workaround.
Media literacy (particularly around images, and also video)has also emerged for me as an essential skill for both students and educators. Yousman’s (2016) discussion of speed versus depth, appearances versus analysis, and the emotional pull of images resonates strongly with my concerns about online-only learning. In a digital environment where learners are often inundated with visuals, the skill to pause, question, and analyze becomes a prerequisite for critical engagement.
Ultimately, this course has left me feeling more positive about the state of in-person teaching, and with significant question marks about the long-term sustainability of online-only-asynchronous education — especially given generative AI’s rise. Many edtech tools, whether devices, applications, or Learning Management Systems, allow for holistic application of UDL principles into a blended learning environment; a fully inclusive environment that allows for multiple means of engagement, representation, and action & expression (Bourlova, 2025). But assessing learning without a real connection to the learner in an online-only environment becomes increasingly challenging in a world where almost anything can be made for you in seconds. When we are digitally siloed, it becomes far too easy to “other” the entire world. Bringing learning back to community, even in a hybrid format, becomes a moral as well as a pedagogical imperative.
This is why I leave this course particularly invigorated to see how learning technologies can be applied to hybrid environments, especially in the realm of professional development. When I plan professional development in schools, I often hear how great it is to have bespoke learning that is relevant, personalized, and even a bit fun when topics are difficult. I know, though, that these sessions are limited in their universal design, as some individuals need more time to process, different modalities, or repeated exposure to key ideas. What if this kind of work can be done at my divisional level to plan PD that reaches more of us, on locally relevant topics, and what if that trickles into our classrooms? One next step I see is reaching out to upper administration to share my vision of hybrid-learning PD using our Edsby system. I don’t know of anyone within my division with this specific background and training, and I wonder if I might be able to shape a role for myself in this space. McErlean’s (2018) work on interactive narratives also strikes me as especially relevant here — using immersion to engage participants while still controlling the delivery of key content. I think hybrid learning could benefit greatly from this balance.
I’m also especially interested in making Open Educational Resources that align with UDL standards. In creating accessible and Creative Commons-licensed resources, I can work toward reducing the paywall creep that has marked the shift from the open optimism of the Web 2.0 era to today’s increasingly commercialized edtech landscape. This work would not only address accessibility and equity concerns but also provide sustainable, adaptable materials that could serve both students and educators long after their initial creation. In my job as a teacher-librarian, I can promote the heck out of these resources to teachers; we don’t have to be in the pocket of big textbook anymore.
This course has reinforced for me that educational technology is at its best when it strengthens human connection, promotes equity, and cultivates critical engagement; not when it simply delivers content faster or more efficiently. The challenge, especially in “interesting times,” is to hold on to those values in the face of rapid change, commercialization, and the seductive ease of automation. My next steps (from advocating for hybrid, UDL-informed professional development to creating accessible OERs) are grounded in a belief that technology should expand possibilities for both teachers and learners, without locking us into closed systems or shallow engagement. The tools will keep changing, but the responsibility to use them thoughtfully remains the same.
Issa, T., & Isaias, P. (2022). Sustainable design : HCI, usability and environmental concerns. Springer.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
McErlean, K. (2018). Interactive narrative. In Interactive narratives and transmedia storytelling: Creating immersive stories across new media platforms (pp. 120-151). New York: Routledge.
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–93.
Yousman, B. (2016). The text and the image: Media literacy, pedagogy, and generational divides. In J. Frechette & R. Williams (Eds.), Media education for a digital generation (pp. 157-170).
Hey readers! I’ve just finished my first stab at Assignment 2 in my Learning Technologies: Selection, Design, and Application course. It has been a learning experience full of ups and downs. But I see something of utility shaping up. You can get a login link to my course sandbox on our course Canvas page (sorry internet lurkers, this one isn’t for you).
Platform Choice
I built the course in Edsby, our division’s Learning Management System. I knew this decision would impose limits—Edsby lacks several features common in other LMSs—but I welcomed the challenge of adapting those features within a familiar environment. Also, it’s sort of fun to find ways to work around limitations and problems 🙂
Designing the course as a divisional certificate PD offered a double benefit. Many teachers have never seen Edsby “from the student side,” so completing the course lets them experience its interface firsthand. That perspective shift—alongside activities such as embedded Padlets, polls, and streamlined content panels—forms a hidden curriculum in which participants learn both about large language models (LLMs) and about effective Edsby design. Knowing my audience includes colleagues who describe themselves as “not tech-savvy,” I recorded short, captioned tutorials for every unfamiliar action—changing a Padlet display name, uploading a file, finding copilot, etc.—so nobody is left guessing.
Assessment is intentionally lightweight but still purposeful. Every required Padlet activity and the final AI-analysis assignment is marked on a single pass/fail checklist: if all criteria are met the first time, the task is marked Complete; if anything is missing, I’ll return a brief note—usually within 48 hours—pinpointing what needs to be added or clarified. This approach models formative, mastery-oriented assessment, keeps marking manageable for me, and gives even tech-skeptical colleagues multiple low-stakes chances to succeed.
Challenges & Pivots
Problems surfaced quickly: Professional Development Groups in Edsby accept assignment submissions, yet those submissions vanish because PD groups aren’t linked to a gradebook. I pivoted to a student-course framework for this prototype and plan to share it as proof of concept for divisional staff learning.
Edsby’s main feed clutters fast and lacks threaded discussion, so I outsourced dialogue to Padlet. This aligns with Chickering & Ehrmann’s (1996) call for active learning and Bates’s (2015) three interaction types (learner–content, learner–teacher, learner–learner). The workaround—email notifications for every Padlet post—is clunky, but Padlet’s LTI integration could resolve that if I can get my IT to enable it. This is not something that will happen during the time we are in the course, but would be a great feature for other teachers in the future.
By confronting Edsby’s constraints head-on—and documenting practical pivots—I aim to model the same critical, creative mindset toward technology that the course has encouraged us to embrace so far.
Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (2001). Implementing the seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education: Technology as lever. Accounting Education News, Journal, Electronic. https://go.exlibris.link/N0tYMtWd
The Learning Environment evaluation rubric was an interesting assignment for me, as I joined a group focused on post-secondary education, despite all of my teaching experience being at the middle and high school levels. Specifically choosing Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC) as our organization provided an excellent opportunity to explore how technology could be leveraged in a program that relies heavily on in-person and hands-on practicum. As I joked in one of our meetings this week—I don’t think I would be willing to go to a chiropractor who was trained only virtually! As such, it became clear that the platform we recommended needed to complement, not replace, face-to-face and practical training.
I had a lot of fun collaborating to develop the rubric for this assignment and weaving together elements from both the SECTIONS and CITE models to create a more holistic overview – what we have entitled the LEARNERS Institutional Needs Assessment Scale and the LEARNERS Learning Tool Assessment Calculator. While the SECTIONS model offers a clear lens for classroom integration, the CITE framework (aimed at global development) brings in valuable perspectives around equity and community benefit—something I believe should be considered in a Canadian context as well. That said, the CITE model can be difficult to navigate, which led us to focus on identifying overlaps and building something new that worked for our scenario. You can see the Needs Assessment Scale here, and the Assessment Calculator here.
One key realization for me during this process was the difference between equity and accessibility in evaluating a technology’s appropriateness. Coming from a public school background, I often prioritize equitable access across diverse devices and connectivity levels. However, in the context of CMCC, with a smaller and more homogenous student body, these concerns were not as high on the institutional priority list. This highlighted how institutional context truly shapes which values are seen as essential—and which are optional.
This project also gave me the opportunity to explore two LMS platforms I hadn’t previously encountered: Docebo and Google Classroom. Docebo, which is used largely in corporate settings, did not sit well with me. Its marketing—“There is no reason we can’t quadruple revenue in the next two years… Docebo has allowed us to create an education engine that’s very plug-and-play and very scalable” (Docebo, 2025)—left me wondering whether education was being reduced to a one-size-fits-all revenue model. That’s obviously beyond the scope of our rubric, but it left a lasting impression (and not a good one). That being said, it offered almost all of the bells and whistles you could be looking for 🙂
Google Classroom is a more familiar and affordable option, but I worry that its low cost is being subsidized through user data collection. The recent bankruptcy of 23andMe (Allyn, 2024), and the concerns about what might happen to user data post-collapse, made me reflect on the fragility of digital trust. While Google Classroom receives a passing grade from Common Sense Media, even their evaluation notes several red flags around data use.
The following two images (Common Sense Media, 2022) show concerns re: data in the Google Classroom ecosystem.
By the end of this assignment, I found myself increasingly skeptical that a truly ethical, learner-centered LMS exists. This exercise sharpened my ability to evaluate tools critically—but it also reinforced my concerns about the broader systems behind them.
(Or to those of you not currently obsessed with working your way through the Duolingo German course—good day my readers.)
For those of you new to my blog, willkommen! I’m Morgan, a secondary school teacher-librarian and current student in the Masters of Educational Technology program through the University of British Columbia. I’m just starting ETEC 524, Learning Technologies: Selection, Design and Application, and this seems like the perfect excuse to dust off my poor, neglected blog. If you scroll through past posts, you’ll get a sense of my background—but here’s the Coles notes version.
This is my fifteenth-year teaching in the public school system in Manitoba, mostly at the middle and high school levels. On paper, I think I was supposed to be a history teacher, but I’ve done a little bit of everything—core classrooms and upper-middle humanities. Seven years ago, I was asked to move into a teacher-librarian role, and I haven’t looked back since. As this blog shows, this is my second program at UBC; my first was the LIBE Diploma, which gave me excellent training in running a well-rounded library program. Librarianing is the best. I get to buy books, collaborate with teachers, curate across multimodalities, nag people about copyright (not gonna lie, my least favourite part), and help guide future-focused pedagogy. I considered a Masters in Library Studies but felt that this program better fit my interests, the needs of our space, and where I see the future of libraries heading.
For this course, I’m interested in bridging the gap between healthy communities and the overwhelming amount of digital content at our fingertips. How do I help students not just find information, but apply it to their own lives? Moving between in-person and virtual spaces is part of daily life, but how do we make that shift feel practical for learners? Maybe it’s the creep of middle age making me critical, but many students seem increasingly disillusioned with school. How do we build learning environments where students critically engage with tech beyond academic checkboxes? And how do I ensure I’m using technology for true redefinition (Puentedura, 2009) rather than using resource-heavy tools for tasks that could just as easily be done on paper? As a librarian, I see the aftermath of a lot of poorly planned tech investments, and I don’t want what I design to add to the mess.
Best golden grill, best fluffy texture, best unusual fillings. One could learn much, mastering the perfect pancake.
What I hope to develop is a course where students choose a demonstrable skill—something they truly want to learn—and build it over a semester. They would set goals, manage their time, reflect on their progress, tackle challenges, and share their learning with others. For example, I might choose to learn how to make the perfect pancake (a worthy pursuit, in my opinion). I’d network with cooks, test recipes, reflect on my process, and document what I learn so I could share it with others. The course would wrap up with a community celebration where students showcase their skills. It’s still just the glimmer of an idea, but I’m hopeful this class will help me turn it into something practical and worth running.
The challenge, of course, is designing something meaningful and manageable when students will pick skills I know nothing about—and that’s kind of the point. I won’t be the expert, but I can build structures to help them find reliable sources, network and connect with experts, and reflect on their learning. That’s where I hope this course will help me grow—giving me the tools to better select and apply technologies that support diverse, self-directed learning without turning the course into a chaotic free-for-all.
This course feels like the right fit to help me move that idea forward. The frameworks we’ll explore—like SAMR and SECTIONS (Bates, 2014)—can help me evaluate whether my design choices are meaningful or just adding extra steps. The focus on learning environments, interaction, and engagement will help me balance student independence with community-building. The work on assessment will push me to clarify what success looks like when every student is learning something different. Later modules on content creation, multimodal presentation, and communication will give me practical tools to support students in sharing their learning in ways that go beyond the traditional slideshow or essay. The final assignments are perfectly timed to help me produce both a structured unit and a tech integration proposal—directly aligned with my course concept.
In short, I hope this course will help me move from intention to implementation—grounding my ideas in research-backed frameworks and best practices, and giving me peer and instructor feedback on my course design. Specifically, I hope to strengthen my ability to design learning environments that foster student agency, apply digital tools purposefully, develop process-based assessment strategies, and support students in sharing their learning in meaningful ways.
To do this, I’ll need access to examples of blended learning structures, readings on assessment for self-directed learning, and opportunities to experiment with digital tools for documenting learning. I also hope to learn from my peers—many of whom bring different teaching contexts and insights that could help me refine my thinking.
By the end of our time together, I know this course will help me take a meaningful step forward in becoming a digital-age teaching professional—someone who not only navigates the evolving world of educational technology but helps students do the same, critically, creatively, and ethically.
Our discussions of knowledge and constructivism often focus on the elusive idea of truth. And it’s not surprising, because so much of our lives depend on the truths that others have decided for us, and the truths we have made for ourselves. For example, when people experience conflict, we ask them what actually happened, and they are often judged and given consequences based on the information they provide, despite the fact that the limitations of human cognition mean that we will almost inevitably be missing, misconstruing, or misrepresenting information. The emphasis on truth also isn’t surprising, because some of our earliest philosophical musings about what constitutes knowledge defined it as “justified true belief” (Pritchard, 2014, p. 22).
Constructivism is a framework for explaining how people learn. Cobb points out two main trends in constructivist research: one that students are actively constructing an understanding of the worlds of their personal experience; the second that focuses on the “social and cultural”-ness of everything that we do (2005, p. 87). Although these views can seem conflicting, neither directly addresses the concept of truth.
Over the millennia that humans have been questing after it, we have developed some significant methods for determining theoretical truths thanks to the use of the scientific method and other well established and rigorous patterns of logic and observation. To borrow from Dr. Taber, we can build a good picture from clues, and we can test these expectations against future experience and make revisions. And from this, we can learn a lot about the world (2020).
Perhaps part of the problem is that both knowledge and belief have instrumental value, with knowledge typically being seen as having greater value (Pritchard, 2014, pp. 12-13). This value is not just inherent; it is socially constructed and reinforced. When we hold a particular belief and find ourselves within a community that shares that belief, we derive a sense of belonging, validation, and even identity from it. Even if a belief is later found to be inaccurate, the process of altering that belief can be complex and emotionally taxing, not merely because of cognitive inertia but also due to the social ramifications it may entail. Taber (2020) hinted at this when he spoke of how we often interpret our experiences to fit our inherent cognitive biases. This is where constructivism’s emphasis on the social dimension of learning becomes crucial.
Constructivism posits that learning isn’t merely an act of individual reflection and experience; it also involves a dynamic interplay with one’s physical and social environment. In essence, our thoughts, and thereby our learning and knowledge, are influenced by our culture. However, they also challenge it, gradually altering its boundaries (Fosnot & Perry, 2005, p. 71). Some theories draw parallels between evolutionary processes and individual learning, suggesting that personal learning can be understood as a result of activity and self-organization. This, in turn, leads to the development of cognitive structures (Fosnot & Perry, 2005, p. 79). As learners engage with their community, they may initially form beliefs based on shared experiences or the prevailing views of that community. The task for educators, then, isn’t just about correcting misinformation but facilitating environments where learners can collaboratively refine, challenge, and cross-check these beliefs. Through rigorous reflection, social interactions, and further experiences, these beliefs can then be transformed into more robust knowledge. Recognizing the social weight of beliefs and their potential to evolve underscores the importance of fostering learning environments where beliefs can be openly tested, questioned, and refined into truths that are more universally applicable.
I think one of the things that I will take from this course is the understanding that I must continue to question things. What do I consider acceptable forms of knowledge; what are acceptable ways to show and share it? The ideas that I have privileged may be the products of social and cultural beliefs rather than rationally supported understanding. Barbara Stewart Edwards spoke to this in her week 7 post : “Within diverse classrooms rich with ‘funds of knowledge,’ constructivist strategies that utilize diverse knowledge well, will not only serve to engage all its learners, but cultural understandings and sensitivity will also develop. Empathy, a trait said to be lacking in many of our 21st century learners, will be awakened.”
Please enjoy these memes that I created based on constructivist principles and in synthesis of course readings.
References
Cobb, P. (2005). Where is the mind? A coordination of sociocultural and cognitive constructivist approaches. In Constructivism : Theory, Perspectives, and Practice. Teachers College Press.
Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (2005). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In Constructivism : Theory, Perspectives, and Practice. Teachers College Press.
Pritchard, D. (2018). What is this thing called knowledge? Routledge.
This week I was working with a class of Grade 7 students on a writing project. Like many teachers, I’ve always struggled with the fact that middle schoolers often join us with a pretty set view of themselves as writers. And for the most part – it isn’t such a great one. As I struggled for the hook to catch them, and hopefully help them take more risks with their work, I remembered a video that condensed the history of the planet Earth into 24 hours. In that video, we learn that in that super shrunk day, humans have only been around for one minute and 17 seconds.
Which got me to thinking: if the history of just homo sapiens was miniaturized into 24 hours, how long have we been able to read and write? While it seems like such a long time to us, we are (from an evolutionary perspective) only wee infants. So, I crunched some numbers and if we use pre-cuneiform writing of Sumerians (3400 BCE at its earliest estimated date) as the first instance of writing, humanity has only been able to read for 39 minutes! And even then, it was a very niche skillset. In fact, over half of the world’s population has only been considered literate since the 1950s, or for 30 seconds of those 24 hours.
I hope that my speech connected with some students, and helped them realize that their reading and writing skills are truly miraculous. I did heavily emphasize that the newness of these skills doesn’t in any way excuse you from working towards improving them – just that you can be a little bit kinder to yourself when things aren’t that easy.
But it also got me to thinking about how young our model of education is in terms of humanity. And how did we teach each other before reading and writing made this model possible? Through experience and story, which I hope is a thread that can be carried on as we move education towards its future.
The Assignment
After much of brainstorming, detailed in my last post here, I loosely nailed down my interest in doing some reading and research on digital storytelling, storytelling tools, multimodal forms and cognitive load management. I think that these terms could be combined into projects and activities that I could run in any classroom and/or course at my school. I’m especially drawn to the idea of digital storytelling, because I think it is just as possible to tell a story through coding, or podcasting, as it is through video applications, and that stories exist in ELA and Social Studies just as much as they do in Woods, Math and PE. There’s just something about the ways that stories bring us together that I’m drawn to – and I think it allows many ways for me to incorporate various technologies and applications.
I decided to start with a search through academic journals and papers, and stumbled upon the following articles:
Six steps for composing a digital story, as found on page six of the document.
This 10-page paper, written by university professors in Guangzhou, China gives the best academic overview of Digital Storytelling that I can find on the topic. With 37 referenced sources, which also provide some useful jumping off points of their own, this paper seeks to review the use and implementation of digital storytelling in education. It gives a basic definition, sets out the benefits, explains the stages, sets out the elements of effective examples, describes the steps for creating, and discusses the opportunities for enhancement of achievement in using DST in education. I think the article provides a good foundation of knowledge on the what and why, but it still left me wishing for more of the how and with what. So, onward I must go on my search.
This 17-page paper written by an education professor at Dong-A University in Busan, South Korea caught my eye because one of the conclusions from the previous article was about the lack of research into the effectiveness of the format. This research, although small in study size, followed two groups of middle school students taking a chemistry course. They were split into two groups; both being taught by the same instructor. The first group took part in an online collaborative digital storytelling unit of study, while the second was focused on conventional online collaborative learning. At the end of the study, students self-reported on a survey that was used to determine three factors potentially influenced by their modes of study: their achievement, social presence, and student attitudes. While showing no significant differences in terms of achievement and student attitudes, there was a significant difference in terms of social presence. The author noted significant evidence for improved interactivity, online communication and privacy. The author does note that other studies have shown impact on achievement and attitudes with DST. Nonetheless, it was interesting to see studies and statistics that imply that DST will help students move towards achieving so many aspects of NCTEs ‘Definition of Literacy in a Digital Age’. And doubtlessly, although there is no way to quantify it, the project allows students to meet these literacy goals in many other ways.
After reading and annotating my way through several longer academic articles and spending some time testing the waters of YouTube, this brief one-pager was truly a sight for sore eyes. As its title clearly sets out, this is more of a list of useful websites and tools for use in digital storytelling projects. Listed options include photo narration apps, comic creation tools, sock puppets, storyboarding support, animated film apps, and script writing tools. I really enjoyed how the list was hyperlinked. I’m sure that there are more tools out there since this was released onto the world a year and a bit ago, but most seem to be established programs/apps and none that I can see are out of business. There’s a good mix of free and paid tools as well. It will give me some good jumping off points for formats and applications to test drive with students.
What can DST projects look like?
4) Twitter hashtag searches for #digitalstorytelling, by all those who Tweet. Published all the time on the internet
I’ve been making a concerted effort to dig my way into educational Twitter since the course began (and I finally reset my lost Twitter password). I’ve decided that I particularly like being able to scan through and see recent posts. By searching the #digitalstorytelling hashtag I have been able to find some prominent Tweeters in the digital storytelling movement, as well as find finished examples that students have put out to the world. These projects are great to have in the toolkit to show students as they begin to brainstorm and make their own creations to tell their own stories. The two tweets below give me examples of projects, as well as handy tips for troubleshooting during their creation.
Screenshot of Scratch interface from Wikimedia Commons
Demo storyboard image from Wikimedia Commons
Brailas gives an overview of two digital storytelling projects that he completed with classes using online tools Scratch and StoryboardThat.
After the rest of my digging around I had lots of ideas, but I was still at a loss for how to frame the process with students; and a handy Google search for “Digital + storytelling + classroom + outline” got me where I needed to go. The author shared many of my concerns and issues – many of the apps and technology required subscriptions that can be cost prohibitive, or required more time than would be available with a class. Thus, he settled on using Scratch and StoryboardThat as DST tools. While I would not probably set up assignments like these ones, I found it useful to gain insight into the thought process and steps that a teacher took while planning and engaging their students in DST work.
I think I feel pretty okay with the idea of story-boarding and curating video, images and audio – but if I did not, I think that this would be an interesting use of my time in preparation (in practice I tend to be more of a try things out and troubleshoot as I go with students person, but for those who are not that type, this might be for them). I had heard the term MOOC in passing before, but it stuck out to me in Why School (Loc 118), and then while stumbling around on the internet here was another one directly connected to the topic I am interested in. The internet really does have everything. Maybe this is a task for my spring break?
I still need materials regarding skills for Cognitive Load Management, but ultimately, I feel like this list is a good start on my interests.
Until next week!
Sources
Brailas, A. (2017). Digital storytelling in the classroom: How to tell students to tell a story. International Journal of Teaching and Case Studies, 1(1), 1. doi: 10.1504/ijtcs.2017.10003059
Nam, C. W. (2017). The effects of digital storytelling on student achievement, social presence, and attitude in online collaborative learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(3), 412–427. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1080/10494820.2015.1135173
Richardson, W. (2012). Why school: how education must change when learning and information are everywhere. New York, NY: TED Conferences.
Cover Image Source
Zuni rock art that depict the celebration of corn planting and corn harvesting and how important the sun was to Zuni survival. [Photograph]. Retrieved from Encyclopædia Britannica ImageQuest. https://quest.eb.com/search/110_364871/1/110_364871/cite
