Mission 2: Tools for Production I

Using Interactive Instructional Images

Interactive instructional images (I3s) are a digital tool with which learners engage with and explore a concept before explaining and evaluating their learning. I considered I3s at the pedagogical and design levels: how could I use this as a tool to help my students learn and how could I design an I3 to hit my learning goals? What does the student user side of things look like and what does the teacher creator side of things look like? For the first question, I considered what I wanted my students to know (learning goals) and do (cognition, products). For the second question, I considered design features of a quality I3 such as an authentic story or problem, developmentally appropriate sources, and organized information and available teacher creation tools, Google Drawings and ThingLink. My group chose to use ThingLink to create an I3 because was a digital tool with which we were not familiar.

I did not use tech integration framework thought processes before diving into creating an I3 with ThingLink. Upon further reflection, I would rate my implementation of I3s as follows:

PIC RAT: The student use of tech is Interactive and the teacher's use of tech Amplifies traditional practice. I3s add an extra layer of accessing all networked resources in a single space that student users touch to explore. Digital resources replace paper ones and teacher knowledge, but the variety in type of networked multimedia is greater than might be available without technology.
Bloom's: The I3 we created is at the Remembering and Understanding level, meant to hit the Engage and Explore levels of the 5Es model of inquiry. Additional "doing" tasks could be added to hit higher levels of both frameworks.

After further reflection, I believe that I3s could reach the Creative/Transformational and Evaluative / Creative levels if students are using the tool to represent their own learning.

A ThingLink interactive instructional image created to address the learning goal of building student agency around study skills for middle school students.

Further Framework Thoughts

I spent another week reflecting on the tech integration frameworks from Mission 1. Among my team's analyses, there was a prevalent favoritism for PIC RAT in relation to describing both classroom stakeholders: teachers and students. Team members called PIC RAT “more comprehensive,” described it as the framework that “best explains” tech integration, and held the possibility for “individualized evaluation” of student learning. Some analyses mentioned preference for Affordance Analysis as being a framework that could help teachers in their designing process to match learning goals and tools. On the whole, Team Bittersweet did not like the SAMR or the 3Es frameworks, mentioning that they were either too basic, were difficult to measure, or did not provide enough detail for how to integrate tools.

When selecting and using tech integration frameworks, there is a need to focus on students (Bloom’s and PIC RAT) and teachers (PIC RAT and Affordance Analysis). Any framework use, or use of multiple frameworks in conjunction with one another, must consider the Choosers (Teachers) and the Users (Students). One team member mentioned that there is a need for professional development on how to actually design learning activities that transform and enrich learning using these frameworks. Many times we are given a framework, told that it is useful and that we should be using it, but are not given support in *how* to use it. It is assumed that we have the know-how to go forth and design. That is not always the case. All educators should feel comfortable in accessing and applying these frameworks to their own professional designing, but more support is needed before they can make that leap. Might this be a job for a SBTS, IFT, etc? It is also important to consider that not all tech use can be transformative all the time. Sometimes, we need to have opportunities to live in the Substitution / Remembering -Understanding realm before we can move to the Modification/Creating realm.

I feel the same about Affordance Analysis as I did before, but I appreciated a team member's insight that A.A. provides information of how to select the tools needed to support learning goals, cognitive processes, and products before moving onto the actual use the tools in the learning process, which is the focus of frameworks like SAMR, PIC RAT, the 3Es, and Bloom’s.

Building an Affordances Resource, Starting with ThingLink

A main mission of EDIT 763 is to empower other educators in choosing and using digital technologies. Team Bittersweet is creating a reference document that describes the affordance, constraints, uses, and further resources for each digital tool we learn about. Here are some thoughts about this week's tool: a ThingLink I3.

The learning objective was for students to explore different types of study and time management skills. The I3 is an engaging, hands-on way for students to interact with content about those concepts. The I3 is also an efficient use of digital space as it allows a teacher designer to link all instructional content to the same location; an I3 serves as a resource hub for exploration.
No accounts are needed for accessing a ThingLink I3 by itself, but accounts may be required for a teacher who wants to create a classroom within the ThingLink app interface or have students create their own I3s. ThingLink is COPPA and FERPA compliant, collecting IP address (location), preferred language, and user use pattern data from non-account-holding student users. Embedded content, such as YouTube videos, may collect their own data, and thus educators should be thoughtful about the privacy and terms of service of the sites they are expecting their students to click into. For registered users, more information is collected.
ThingLink has three tiers of use. The free version comes with basic I3 image creation and up to 1000 views per year. The premium teacher subscription comes with the ability to add students to classes and create assignments (students creating their own I3s). The district version comes with professional development support and LMS integration capability.
ThingLink is accessible across iOS and Android operating systems and integrates with Microsoft and Google products. I accessed its creation suite in the Chrome internet browser, but it could also be accessed on a tablet. As with any digital creation tool, the creator must have the necessary software skills in order to successfully create the desired product. ThingLink offers templates and blank canvas options for creating static or 360 degree I3s. Creators embed endless possibilities of multimedia: YouTube videos, sound files, text headers, links to outside resources, images, and more. My partner and I took about 20 minutes to learn to use the ThingLink app, but we also had the background knowledge of how to upload a background image, embed multimedia links, and write titles and descriptions of links. An educator who does not have those background software skills might struggle to use ThingLink.
The free version of ThingLink does not come with the option for teachers to create classes and assignments, but the educator premium version does come with the ability to assign students to create their own ThingLinks I3s to represent and evaluate their learning. An educator without a premium account could have all students sign up for a free account but should consider district educational technology policies before pushing out the tool for student use. I can imagine my students creating a ThingLink I3 to represent learning about a concept instead of taking a written, paper assessment on the topic.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse