Technology in the remote classroom

As a teacher I have technological knowledge that many of my non-teaching peers don’t have. I have had access to devices and to various software platforms and applications that support learning. According to the review by the American National Education Association, (cited in Ertimer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013, p.177) teachers were more confident using technology for administrative purposes than incorporating it into their lessons. Like many teachers I see technology as a great idea but have little understanding of how and why to use it in the class (Ertmer, & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013 p175). Those teachers who are passionate about STEM will introduce students to the fascination of robotics and lead them to think more creatively, not me.

When I moved to a remote school I was no longer a high school English teacher, I was a Year 5/6 primary teacher and therefore had to teach all subject areas. With the high turnover of staff I could not rely on someone else’s passion to drive the technological agenda; it had to be me. There were several obstacles to introducing technology in the school. An inventory of the devices available showed that only 4 of the 12 IPads and 5 of 18 Chromebooks worked. IT assistance arrived every 5 weeks for 3 hours and I had just missed it. I could not use the lack of hardware as an excuse not fulfil my responsibilities.

What was available were several disused laptops and towers. I also scoured the community for Phillips head screwdrivers. I finally found two at the art gallery and with an understanding that my life would be forfeited if I didn’t return them I borrowed them for the class.

Teaching is complex and one lesson may exhibit several pedagogies. My unit was underpinned by social constructivism (Bower, 2017 p. 44). I scaffolded the information and took into consideration the background and needs of my students. All are Kriol speakers so explanations need to be visual and vocabulary must be taught. As they live in a remote community they do not necessarily have the schema to understand the content and many experience transgenerational trauma and recent trauma so their working memory maybe affected. To support them activities must scaffolded and repeated.

Every lesson for two weeks began with a visual prompt, a video of the hardware, and using behavioural pedagogy names of the parts of the computer and their purpose were chanted. Within the lesson I moved from behavioural pedagogy to a constructionist pedagogy with a problem solving strategy. The students had to dismantle the hardware and find the parts and label them or verbally explain them. The unit was a success. I had to move the unit to the end of the day as it was hard to disengage students to move onto other subjects. Some of the Year 4 students came in after school to do the unit as well.

Reference List

Bower, M. (2017). Design of technology-enhanced learning – Integrating research and practice. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Group Ch.3

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., 2013,’Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning’, Computers & Education, Vol 64, pp175-182 viewed 20^th August, 2019, Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete database