In this session participants will:

* Receive an overview of TPCK/TPACK
* Receive an overview of TPC 3D
* Explore a set of Instructional Design tools that utilize TPC 3D
* Observe how SME/F data informs Instructional Design decisions

Abstract

Title: Moral Considerations when Teaching and Learning with Technology

Purpose of Session
The purpose of this session is not to advocate for moral education, per se, but rather to encourage discussion about the moral implications of the endeavor of education and more especially of teaching and learning with technology. These considerations become possibly more important to consider as technologies, including social media, change the way that students and instructors interact and as people become life-long learners involved in personal learning networks. From multiple perspectives we will discuss a) moral goals of education, b) what if any are the moral challenges of teaching and learning with technology, and c) what are the moral imperatives of teaching and learning.

Objectives of the Session
The objective of the session is for participants to discuss the moral related issues surrounding the use of technology in education. To encourage discussion, the presenter will provide some possible frameworks related to each of the major questions proposed. Then he will ask pointed questions to help participants share their views and experiences related to each subtopic.

Information and Practical Application
Many educational theorists, philosophers, and scholars have stated that education is a moral endeavor—and consequently, the moral implications and effects on students are unavoidable (Johnson, et al., 2010; Balmert & Ezzell, 2002; Berkowitz, 2002; Berkowitz & Fekula, 1999; Carr, 2005; Lewis, 1965). If this is truly the case, then it follows that there are also moral implications for the practice of teachers, designers, and administrators. To tease out these moral implications, the presentation will primarily focus on three questions.

The first question we will address is, what are the moral goals of education, and are they attainable when using technology? To encourage discussion we will look at frameworks of Performance and Moral Character from Davidson, Lickona, and Khmelkov (2008, also see Lickona & Davidson 2005), Voices of Conscience- Craft, Membership, Sacrifice, Memory and Imagination from Green (1999), Agency and Love from R. T. Osguthorpe (2009), as well as ideas from other theorists (e.g., Berkowitz & Fekula, 1999; Peterson & Seligman, 2004; R. D. Osguthorpe, 2009, etc.) to discuss if their ideas are applicable to technology mediated education.

For the second question, what are the moral challenges of teaching and learning with technology? We will explore challenges faced with the use of technology, such as copyright and fair use, plagiarism and other forms of cheating (Gismondi, 2006), privacy (including FERPA issues), predatory behavior, anonymity, pornography, distractions, disengagement from the real world, among others. Participants will be able to share ideas on how we might handle these challenges to avoid or minimize their occurrence and effects.

Finally, assuming education truly is a moral endeavor as some advocate, we will discuss the third question, what are (or should be) the moral obligations of teachers and learners when teaching or learning with technology? I will present ideas from many of the authors cited above such as, R. D. Osguthorpe, 2009, R. T. Osguthorpe (2009), Berkowitz & Fekula (1999), Johnson, et al. (2010), and others (such as Lewis, 1965, 1996, etc.).

Participants will hopefully come away from the session with questions of their owns about the moral implications of their work with educational technology, whether they are learners, teachers, designers, administrators, etc. They should also come away with ideas and resources for pursuing answers to those questions on the moral implications of their practice.

References
Balmert, M.E., & Ezzell, M.H. (2002). Leading learning by assuring distance instructional technology is an ethical enterprise. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Adult Higher Education Alliance, Pittsburgh, PA.

Berkowitz, M.W. (2002). The science of character education. In W. Damon (Ed.), Bringing in a new era in character education (pp. 43–63). Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.

Berkowitz, M.W., & Fekula, M.J. (1999). Educating for character. About Campus, 4(5), 17–22.

Davidson, M., Lickona, T., & Khmelkov, V. (2008). Smart & good schools: A new paradigm for high school character education. In L.P. Nucci (Ed.), Handbook of moral and character education. New York: Routledge.

Gismondi, A. (2006). The downside of the Internet: Cheating and technology in higher education. Journal of College and Character 7(5). Retrieved March 10, 2010 from http://journals.naspa.org/jcc/vol7/iss5/5/

Johnson, M. J., Osguthorpe, R. D., & Williams, D. D. (2010). The phenomenon of character development in a distance education course. Journal of College and Character 11(1). Retrieved March 10, 2010 from http://journals.naspa.org/jcc/vol11/iss1/7/

Lewis, C.S. (1965). The abolition of man or reflections on education with special reference to the teaching of English in the upper forms of schools. New York: MacMillan Publishing.

Lewis, C.S. (1996). The screwtape letters (Revised ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster.

Lickona, T., & Davidson, M. (2005). Smart & good high schools: Integrating excellence and ethics for success in school, work, and beyond. Cortland, NY: Center for the 4th and 5th Rs (Respect & Responsibility), Washington, D.C.: Character Education Partnership.

Osguthorpe, R.D. (2009). On the possible forms a relationship might take between the moral character of a teacher and the moral development of a student. Teachers College Record, 111(1). Retrieved April 4, 2008, from http://www.tcrecord.org

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M.E.P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Presenter

Michael Johnson
Sr. Instructional Designer
Brigham Young University

http://michaelcjohnson.posterous.com

Michael C. Johnson holds a master’s degree in Instructional Technology from Utah State University and a PhD in Instructional Psychology and Technology from Brigham Young University. He previously worked as a middle school Spanish teacher and as an instructional designer in the financial industry creating and delivering training for call center employees. He is currently an instructional designer at BYU’s Center for Teaching and Learning.

Abstract

Though perhaps the phrase “digital natives” is hyperbole, it is true that learners in the 21st century must operate in an increasingly connected and digital world. Thriving and excelling in 21c may require learners to develop digital identities that are shared online as part of an explicit or implicit goal of networking with professionals, connecting to information, or showcasing their own work. So-called “blogs” are becoming just another personal web site, but these web sites are still the hub on online personal learning environments, and recent advances in data interaction, syndication, and aggregation increase the potency of blogs for personal development and learning.

This session introduces blogs as a space for learners to plant, cultivate, and grow their digital identity as a component of their personal learning environments, and as one track in a larger approach to active life-long learning. I will describe the affordances of blogging in general, highlight opportunities to leverage blogging for teaching and learning, and show examples from a number of institutions that highlight products of blogging in educational contexts.

Further, we will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of integrated or institutionally-controlled blogging systems versus “outworld” or externally-hosted systems. I will pay special attention to WordPress and WordPress MU, and explain the pilot project that I have been running at Utah Valley University which provides space on a locally-hosted WordPress MU system to any student, faculty, staff, or organization.

Presenter

Jared Stein
Director of Instructional Design Services
Utah Valley University

http://jaredstein.org

Jared Stein is Director of Instructional Design Services for Utah Valley University’s department of Instructional Design, Development, and Distance Education.

Abstract

Drupal’s use is exploding in Higher Education. This session will introduce a new Drupal distribution designed to serve as a platform for building rich intranets for educational institutions.

Universities are large complex enterprises. Drupal’s modularity and flexibility make it the perfect platform for building a new social learning environment which “glues” together legacy LMS systems, Student Information Systems, grading systems, and learning happening on 3rd-party tools such as Google Docs, wikis, blogs, micro-blogging platforms such as Twitter, and so on.

I’ve been working on Eduglu for the past two years as a student at Brigham Young University and am now releasing it to the world and starting a company to provide commercial support and hosting.

This session will serve as an introduction to Eduglu.

• How we build and maintain Eduglu.
• Eduglu’s current functionality and roadmap for the next year.
• Where your help is needed to make Eduglu thrive.
• What needs a tool like Eduglu fulfills.
• And why Eduglu is the perfect base for your next social learning project.

I expect to make the first beta release for Eduglu by Drupalcon. Alpha testers are welcome (and needed) now!

Presenter

Kyle Mathews
entrepreneur
n/a

http://kyle.mathews2000.com

I run a company that builds social learning products based on the open source CMS Drupal.

Abstract

Purpose of Session
The successful integration of technology into educational settings continues to be problematic. Although computers have had a significant impact in the workplace and the social sphere, they have not had the same transformative effect in education.

Over the last three decades, the implicit goal of research on technology integration has been to identify a single variable that could explain and predict success or lack of success. The various threads of research have been informative; however, they have been unable to substantiate a predictive model. Within the last several years, researchers have begun to reject the single variable solution and have proposed different multivariate, or ecological models in which technology is viewed as one of several elements that interact within a learning environment.

While human agency is acknowledged in these models, we propose that agency is the dominant factor in the successful integration of technology. Specifically, we propose that there is a semi-conscious process—which we call agentive valuation—that occurs when technological innovations are introduced into the classroom. Agentive valuation acknowledges that people are agents with their own purposes, goals, and preferences. We use the term valuation in contrast to evaluation: Where evaluation is more a structured, rational and public process, we use valuation to connote a more intuitive, informal and invisible process whereby agents attach a vague, non-rational value on the technology in relation to their own purposes, preferences, and value systems. Other factors certainly play a role, but are often used to construct an objective public rationale after the fact when other more subjective, relatively private criteria may have been more influential. Agentive valuation encompasses familiar concepts such as cost/benefit and risk/reward; however, these are generally used in the context of a rational value. Agentive valuation also includes less rational criteria such as aesthetic preference and social value. Further, we submit that these issues are implicit in the literature, but have not been brought to the fore explicitly.

The purpose of this session is to briefly review the major themes of the research on technology integration; to describe the process of agentive valuation; to demonstrate briefly how the major themes of research fit within agentive valuation; to discuss with participants how this concept fits with their experience and affects their efforts at technology implementation; and to discuss how agentive valuation points toward different avenues of research.

Practical applications (how can your results/strategies be used by others)
This session offers no magic-bullet solution to the issues of technology integration. It may, however, ease the frustration and redirect the efforts of the technologist/designer/instructor searching for a rational explanation when the explanation may simply not be rational. We will discuss with participants strategies to uncover and address the motivations and values of the various stakeholders. Further, the concept of agentive valuation redirects research toward the valuing process of agents and away from cause/effect or correlational interactions of environmental variables.

Information (data or theoretical base) to support what is advocated
This project began with collateral data collected during evaluations of a realistic, chemistry laboratory simulation implemented at BYU. One of the reigning assumptions is that the “millennial generation” prefers technology. However, our experience did not substantiate this assumption. Even where the professor was enthusiastic about the simulation, students did not always react favorably. Further, in a situation where environmental variables are reasonably similar, some classes gave favorable evaluations of the simulation, and other classes gave poor evaluations of the product. As we looked into the literature on this subject, and reviewed our own data, observations, and conversations, the pattern that fit best was the notion of a semi-conscious, quasi-rational valuing process by the various stakeholders (including students). While this presentation is largely theoretical, we believe it will be of value for practical implementation as well as indicate different directions in research.

Presenter

Richard Swan
Teaching & Learning Consultant
BYU

Richard Swan earned his Ph.D. in Instructional Psychology and Technology and has worked at BYU for 15 years in the field of instructional design and faculty development. He has been the instructional designer for the international award-winning Virtual ChemLab Series as well as for several other nationally published instructional products. His research interests include: design for student engagement, the role of agency in learning, learning theory, and educational philosophy. His most recent publication is the chapter, Feedforward as an Essential Active Principle of Engagement in Computer Games, in the book, Gaming and Cognition: Theories and Practice from the Learning Sciences, edited by Richard Van Eck and scheduled for release in the spring of 2010.