Mission 1 involved learning to apply various technology integration frameworks for the process of choosing and using digital technologies for instruction. Each framework had a particular focus and presentation:
Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy is a continuum of action verbs that are associated with levels of cognition and that are expressed through digital media. For example, searching is a Remembering level task, while blogging is a Creating level task. It also includes “Collaboration” as a process to be included across levels to enhance learning.This framework is student-focused and some versions (see Pedagogy Wheel) recommend digital technologies that support various cognitive processes along the continuum of six levels. The framework does not provide a way for teachers to explain the benefits and limitations of a certain tool.
SAMR is a teacher-focused framework--also a continuum--with which teachers can examine how using a certain tool will impact learning: no-tech, teacher-driven to tech-integrated, student-driven learning.
PIC - RAT is a student- and teacher-focused framework. It combines the students’ relationship with technology with the teacher’s use of technology to reach learning outcomes. PIC - RAT feels like a Bloom’s-SAMR hybrid.
E-3 is another student-focused framework that treats learning as something that students must be motivated towards and something that teachers must facilitate to help students reach that motivation. Does technology save time, does it support “doing” tasks, and does it enhance learning? An extension of E-3 is an instructional model of activation, demonstration, application, and integration of learning goals and activities that are problem-centered.
Affordance Analysis is the teacher-focused process of selecting the correct tool to support the requirements of learning goals. Consideration is paid to benefits and limitations of tools and how those would impact the learning process. Friedhoff’s (2008) affordance process includes an extra step of evaluating the chosen tool after it has been used to enhance instruction.
My top three frameworks to incorporate into my teaching practice would be Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy, PIC - RAT, and Affordance Analysis.
I like that Bloom’s provides specific cognitive processes that I can connect to “doing” practices of my students. Merrill (2018) stated, “Information alone is not instruction.” When I design opportunities to facilitate student learning, I consider “what are students going to do with this information?” I appreciate how some versions of Bloom’s give ideas about what digital technologies to use in support of those cognitive processes. I loved that this framework includes collaboration, a high demand 21st century skill, as a process that dovetails nicely with cognitive processes.
PIC - RAT is student- and teacher-focused. What is the student’s relationship to the technology in their learning and how are teachers using the tech to change learning? I appreciated reading the idea that it is OK to design opportunities along this continuum. It’s important to choose the right tool for the “doing” tasks.
Affordance Analysis is the teacher-focused “choosing” process through which one would select the right tool to support the cognitive “using” processes listed in Bloom’s. Implementing a new app from the Pedagogy Wheel without vetting its benefits and limitations against what you are trying to support within learning tasks is comparable to giving a prehistoric human a lighter without explaining how to use it (teaching the software/technology skills) or what your goals for giving the lighter may be. The prehistoric human might be able to guess how to use the tool, but they may also do something else with it that is completely different than how you intended it to be used.
I did not find the other two frameworks, SAMR and E3, as useful for choosing and using digital technologies. Both are good tools for judging how technology is used in the learning design and implementation processes, but seem to be more general when considering how tools support the learning tasks. Affordance Analysis specifically addresses benefits and constraints of tools.
End Note: I appreciated practicing using the Affordance Analysis framework in writing this reflection: considering the benefits and limitations of each framework.
References
Freidhoff, J.R. (2008). Reflecting on the Affordances and Constraints of Technologies and Their Impact on Pedagogical Goals. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(4), 117-122. Retrieved March 7, 2021 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/105297/.
Merrill, M. D. (2018). Using the First Principles of Instruction to Make Instruction Effective, Efficient, and Engaging. In R. E. West (Ed.), Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/using_the_first_principles_of_instruction