My Assessment Task A

This subject has allowed me to delve deeper into the Australian Curriculum’s Design and Digital Technologies learning areas. I now have a better understanding of how they are linked to one another, and to futures thinking, and how they also very different, requiring different types of thinking from learners and therefore, teaching.

Through my own project management of a design, I have been able to think like a ‘learner’, ‘teacher’ and ‘student’ simultaneously.  I reflected on this in my blog (see Digital Pedagogy: Web 2.0 and classrooms).

The thinking that is required from students is different throughout the processes of a design cycle. The design cycle is the foundation of technology education. For me, understanding and defining the thinking involved was so important and very productive for preparing myself as a teacher in this KLA. Design thinking pedagogy would involve lots of discussion about why we design, what needs design fills in society. This would involve looking at many examples of design and the intentions to ‘improve life’ for particular individuals and groups. Furthermore, I have come to realise that design thinking involves research based decisions based on available materials, sustainable choices, and the properties they have. Peer feedback from Sarah improved my thinking about teaching during the investigation process involving the available materials for the investigation and also, real life designs and how they were managed.

I have reflected on computational thinking (see Design thinking vs computational thinking). I have realised that design thinking is broader in scope, and comes before computational thinking requires students to show their procedures, their design problems broken down, in physical and other creative ways. It is here that I have been given so many opportunities to consider teaching practices involving visual literacy and graphic organisers, including ‘graphicacy’ (Beaudry, 2015). This is related to my discoveries about how children learn technology, but I realise we must guide them explicitly, to bring structure to their ideas, and to help bring their thinking processes to life with visual and multimodal tools.

I have considered, Mawson’s (2003) researched data about student design behaviour and their need to explore materials and their mind’s eye (rather than a focus on drawing design first) and have come to the conclusion that a flexible approach is best; teaching skills as they are needed within the design cycle. Additionally, I now see the design cycle as being very non-linear, and flexible. I took many turns back and forth in the process of my design challenge. Allowing children to choose their starting strategy may be beneficial.

The ability to evaluate a product (an existing one, or an idea for one) was a learning curve. The resource ‘Evaluation of a marketed product’ was encompassing of so much scope. The questions that students have to think through, using the tool, was very adaptable to an early childhood setting by simplifying these questions. 

One of the big ideas I came away with, was social constructivist methodologies in this learning area is effective and also mandated. This affected the way I think about design and digital technology pedagogy; discussing ideas, creating and organising ideas and sharing ideas using digital technologies. Furthermore, how to create safe online environments is an element of my active learning whilst using online 2.0 tools and collaborative spaces during this process. By taking part in actively creating these digital spaces, I have gained the confidence to use them in a classroom, and can see many diverse ways in which it can help engage and excite children.

Engaging with the design cycle was an important element for my thinking to become clearer about how to teach at each stage, and why. Developing a criteria for success, for designs, is an important element that I discovered, is vital in the early stages. I developed a criterion and would consistently use it to make sure my designs were ‘on track’. The criteria also became helpful when decision making was involved.

There were many challenges along the way. I had only words on paper to guide my discovery of these new digital technologies. I fumbled, but relied on the procedures given to me. A student will always need scaffolding when encountering new things. The idea that design decisions can be made using objective judgement, based on a matrix, was very new to me, and valuable. I will use the weighted decision making process with future learners. It took the subjectivity and aesthetic judgement out of it.

In regards to peer collaboration, feedback, and evaluation, I really did not benefit consistently throughout the process. I had general feedback that my design planning was ‘good’, but nothing (at the stage when I needed it) to assist my reflection. I received peer feedback immediately prior to submission of Task A. Although late, I did benefit from some insight. I wonder if it was because I am an external student, and we rely so much on the digital technologies for support and feedback. This makes me consider the timing of collaboration, at poignant parts of the design process within the classroom. This has to be balanced, small group/pair situations where everyone is participating. One sided feedback is not helpful or equitable to all learners.

Also, in giving feedback, I found that I needed a ‘format’ to guide me in giving the best, balanced feedback that I could. I based it around the design cycle itself, and you can see my creation of a wiki page to discuss this idea. It was an analysis tool, and I can see how important it would be to guide children’s questioning and ways to give feedback using strategies in an early childhood classroom.

References

Australian Curriculum (2015). F-10 Curriculum: Technologies rationale. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/technologies/rationale

Beaudry, J. (2015). Visual Literacy for all teachers and learners: Essential knowledge and skills to create, use and assess concept maps and graphic organisers. In Younie, S., Leask, M.,  & Burden, K. (Eds.), Teaching and Learning with ICT in the Primary School (pp. 54-70). New York, New Jersey: Routledge.

Mawson, B. (2003). Beyond `The Design Process': An Alternative Pedagogy for Technology Education. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 13(2), 117-128.