On the surface, adopting technology to support teacher needs or student challenges isn’t terribly complex: define the problem you’re trying to solve, identify the right tools for the job, and implement the tools effectively and with fidelity.
Technology is just a tool, not a means in and of itself. Any school or teacher that sets out to use technology for its sake alone, and not in the service of personalizing learning or addressing specific needs, is on a mission to fail.
Insufficient Modeling of Best Practices
A survey from Samsung found that 37 percent of teachers say they would love to use technology but don’t know how, and 76 percent say they would like a professional development day dedicated to technology.
Teachers face initiative fatigue: They are constantly being asked to implement new programs, integrate new technologies, and add on layers of responsibility. In one Wisconsin district, nearly half of teachers felt ongoing district initiatives were a “significant area of concern.”
Forward-thinking schools take the time to learn from the challenges of other schools, and recruit a coalition of the willing.
Real-World Usability Challenges
Relying on multiple devices (remote, clicker, iPad, computer mouse) to launch or navigate technology can be difficult. Additionally, teachers may start to use a tool, only to realize it is not flexible enough to meet their original needs, fit into the constraints of their particular school or classroom, or allow them to integrate their own content or supplemental resources.
The Right Data to Track Progress
Lack of useful data, problem definition, weak teacher buy-in, first impressions, and usability challenges all have the potential to torpedo smart technology products.
AR and VR are mediums for the transmission of information, and many people will judge these mediums by the content that is produced within them. For educators seeking to gain buy-in from administrators and other colleagues it is critical for them to justify the reasons their content requires new reality media.
Given the newness of these mediums, it is no surprise that few curricular resources exist to support courses around VR and AR. Professional development sessions on new reality tools are almost non-existent, which means educators seeking to use virtual or augmented reality simply need to dive into the subjects.
“The equipment matters. If there is a latency between the computer and the VR set that can cause a lot of problems,”
With VR equipment ranging from about $15 to $600 educators will have to check the budget or start writing grant proposals to gain access to the higher quality machines.
5. Understand Your Student’s Needs
described as a “quantum shift” in the way we interact, learn and experience.
A virtual reality headset can take students on an immersive journey to another world. But no matter how cool it is, if that $3,000 piece of equipment enters a classroom and doesn’t provide any real instructional value, it can quickly become a very expensive paperweight.
Most schools don’t do edtech procurement really well yet. Sometimes we buy products that end up in closets because they don’t fit the instructional needs of students, and we end up not being good stewards of taxpayer dollars.
Located in the district’s central office, where hundreds of teachers and staff members stop by each week for professional development, the playground offers a creative space that encourages teachers to explore new tools that have been vetted and approved by the district’s tech department.
In the United States, K-12 schools spend more than $13 billion a year on edtech — often without any idea whether it will make a difference in learning outcomes.
The Augmented Reality Game, Pokemon Go, took the world by storm in the summer of 2016. City landscapes were decorated with amusing, colourful objects called Pokemon, and the holiday activities were enhanced by catching these wonderful creatures. In light of this, it is inevitable for mobile language learning researchers to reflect on the impact oft his game on learning and how it may be leveraged to enhance the design of mobile and ubiquitous technologies for mobile and situated language learning. This paper analyses the game Pokemon Go and the players’ experiences accordingto a framework developed for evaluating mobile language learning and discusses how Pokemon Go can help to meetsome of the challenges faced by earlier research activities.
A comparison between PG and Geocashing will illustrate the evolution of the concept of location-based games a concept that is very close to that of situated learning that we have explored in several previous works.
Pokémon Go is a free, location-based augmented reality game developed for mobile devices. Players useGPS on their mobile device to locate, capture, battle, and train virtual creatures (a.k.a. Pokémon), whichappear on screen overlaying the image seen through the device’s camera. This makes it seem like thePokemon are in the same real-world location as the player
“Put simply, augmented reality is a technology that overlays computer generated visuals over the real worldthrough a device camera bringing your surroundings to life and interacting with sensors such as location and heart rate to provide additional information”(Ramirez, 2014).
Apply the evaluation framework developed in 2015 for mobile learning applications(Cacchione, Procter-Legg, Petersen, & Winter, 2015). The framework is composed of a set offactors of different nature neuroscientific, technological, organisational and pedagogical and aim toprovide a comprehensive account of what plays a major role in ensuring effective learning via mobile devices
Open Discussion: Instruments and Methods for Formative Assessment: by invitation of teachers from Plovdiv region | Тема: Инструменти и методи за актуални училищни занятия
Where | Къде: СУ „Димитър Матевски“ https://goo.gl/maps/rojNjE3dk4s and online ( виртуално) When | Кога: 2. май, 2018, 14 часа | May 2, 2018, 2PM local time (Bulgaria) Who | Кой: преподаватели и педагози | teachers and faculty How | Как: използвайте “обратна връзка” за споделяне на вашите идеи | use the following hashtag for backchanneling#BGtechEd
Intro | Представяне – 5мин. Who are we (please share short intro about your professional interests) | Кои сме ние: споделете накратко професионалните си интереси (използвайте “comment” section под този блог) http://web.stcloudstate.edu/pmiltenoff/faculty/
Reality Check (before we do tech) | минута за откровение (преди да започнем с технологии): http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2018/04/17/edtech-implementation-fails/
why technology application fails | защо се проваля използването на технологии в обучението?
Understanding Purpose | какъв е смисълът
Insufficient Modeling of Best Practices | недостатъчен или несподелен опит
Bad First Impressions | лоши първи впечатления
Real-World Usability Challenges | ежедневни проблеми
The Right Data to Track Progress | кои данни определят успеха
Share your thoughts for the fails | Сподели твоите мисли за провала
Тема1. Сравняване на Kahoot, Edpuzzle и Apester – 1-1, 1/2 час продължителност Topic 1: A comparison of Kahoot, Apester and EdPuzzle
Дискусия, относно методиката на използване. Споделяне на опит кога и как го използват колегите от България и САЩ (други страни?).
Short demonstration and discussion regarding methodology of use. Sharing experience of use.
Споделяне на опит | ideas and experience exchange.
Comparison to other tools (e.g. flipped classroom advantage to Kahoot; difference from EdPuzzle, similarities to EdPuzzle) | съпоставяне с други инструменти: например, обърната класна стая – предимство пред Кахут; разлики и прилики с ЕдПъзил и тн)
Създаване на акаунт | account creation and building of learning objects
Comparison to other tools (e.g. flipped classroom advantage to Kahoot; difference from EdPuzzle, similarities to EdPuzzle) | съпоставяне с други инструменти: например, обърната класна стая – предимство пред Кахут; разлики и прилики с Еиптстър и тн)
It is important to note that bot accounts do not always clearly identify themselves as such in their profiles, and any bot classification system inevitably carries some risk of error. The Botometer system has been documented and validated in an array of academicpublications, and researchers from the Center conducted a number of independent validation measures of its results.8