Learning Framework>Engage>Critical Thinking
"Outcomes focus on high-level thinking skills."
(Learning Resources Unit @ BCIT, 2003, p. 27)
(Learning Resources Unit @ BCIT, 2003, p. 27)
The ability to think critically and evaluate information is vital to engagement and ultimately the building of knowledge. Simply reading and regurgitating the opinions of others is not enough to motivate students or result in lasting, deep learning. In the MET program we were challenged to interact with concepts, ideas, and the opinions of experts and classmates in a thoughtful, critical way. This happened largely through weekly discussion topics, but also through assignments such as literature critiques, and the many required papers.
The Assignment
In Foundations of Educational Technology (ETEC511) we were asked to theorize a technological tool or issue related to educational technology. The challenge was to complete this assignment in 700 words or less, including titles and references. We were also instructed to include a cartoon as a commonly used method of deconstruction and theorizing. I chose to critically assess and theorize Smartphones and their use in education. This was a challenging task from the outset. Our assigned readings helped to pave the way. Inspiration came from the masters of theorizing, Edward Tufte (2003) & Knowlton & Heidegger (1992). Once the ideas were in place, the biggest challenge was crafting the document into 700 words, including references. Every word counted, and the task required a number of revisions to arrive at the final draft. This was the first of many opportunities to think critically about a topic and give voice to my opinions. |
Reflection
Tasks Accomplished and Skills Demonstrated
Knowledge Gained and Impact Made Aside from the actual subject knowledge gained on the the issues relating to the use of Smartphones in education, this assignment was a lesson in self-efficacy. This was my first assignment in the MET program and I thought it might possibly be my last. I was overwhelmed with online learning, re-entry to academia, and complicated theoretical arguments of the various literature that we were reading. The assignment seemed beyond my capabilities, both in terms of thinking and producing a cartoon. However, as I did some research, began looking at examples of other critiques, and pondered the readings, I began to consider that perhaps I could. As I realized that this was possible, then I became more self-confident, and the ideas began to flow. In the end, I enjoyed all aspects of the assignment. To my great surprise, the instructor urged me to submit the assignment for publication which I did. It was published in the January/February 2012 edition of the BCTF Magazine, allowing me to add my voice in a small way to the greater conversation on the issue of educational technology. It was a lesson learned for future courses, assignments, and for the lives of my own students. Self-efficacy is a powerful motivation for learning and performance. The level of engagement required to think critically and complete this task ensured that I was building knowledge that would not soon be forgotten. Critical thinking is essential in the field of educational technology. It will prevent me from jumping on the bandwagon of new and cool technologies and allow me to carefully consider my approach from multiple perspectives. |
References, Links, and Key Resources
Knowlton, E. & Heidegger, M. (Winter, 1992). The hand and the hammer: A brief critique of the overhead projector. Feminist Teacher 6(2), p. 21-23.
Learning Resources Unit @ BCIT (2003). Contructivist e-learning methodologies: A Module development guide. Pan-Canadian Health Informatics
Collaboratory.
Penner, J. (January/February 2012). Smartphones dehumanize users. Teacher Newsmagazine, 24, (4). Retrieved from
http://bctf.ca/publications/NewsmagArticle.aspx?id=25056
Tufte, E. (September 2003). Powerpoint is evil. Wired Magazine, 11(9). Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/ppt2_pr.html
Knowlton, E. & Heidegger, M. (Winter, 1992). The hand and the hammer: A brief critique of the overhead projector. Feminist Teacher 6(2), p. 21-23.
Learning Resources Unit @ BCIT (2003). Contructivist e-learning methodologies: A Module development guide. Pan-Canadian Health Informatics
Collaboratory.
Penner, J. (January/February 2012). Smartphones dehumanize users. Teacher Newsmagazine, 24, (4). Retrieved from
http://bctf.ca/publications/NewsmagArticle.aspx?id=25056
Tufte, E. (September 2003). Powerpoint is evil. Wired Magazine, 11(9). Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/ppt2_pr.html