Module 5 Blog
 |
| Motivation Aligned Model |
Feeling efficacious about one’s self might not be related to technology. We’ve been getting along fine at our jobs, and our productivity was never questioned. How can anyone be affected with not knowing new technology and its application on the job? The social profession of teaching is being transformed to access and use technology in all areas of learning. I am not able to know how a teacher feels if they are naive towards technology use on the job. This is because I am technology literate and it becomes a part of me too simple to understand other's challenge. I’m called upon for satisfying all technology needs. And, what I have never done before I am still able to solve it, because I can’t allow my efficacious technology feeling to be marred. But I have come across teachers who are not worried about technology because I’m in their reach. If they begin to feel guilty of technology efficacy it might be as a result of students, request, administrator’s decision or if I intervene in their classroom requirements.
Three years ago I was working at one middle school that teachers were not exceptionally desirous to work with technology. At the beginning of the school year in September, the principal asked me to check to see that all computers (PCs) in all classrooms were in working condition and connected to the internet. One class room that I checked had only one PC which I checked and put in working condition. The homeroom teacher taught two subjects, Music and Mathematics. The classroom was neatly organized with charts and a back table that had space for two PCs. I asked the teacher (Ms. "P" for this blog) if she would like to have two additional computers as there was enough space for layout and installation. Ms. P in a very nice way refused the offer. I was perplexed and could not understand why any teacher would refuse such offer.
About two weeks later one of Ms. P’s student came to the technology lab. The student asked if she could use a computer in the lab to research a popular lyric and the original composer. I asked the student why this was not done in Ms. P’s class. The student told me that Ms. P’s computer was not working. I questioned some more and found out that Ms. P not only did not allow her student to use the computer, but she (Ms. P) was not using her computer. Revelation of this information caused me to check in with Ms. P. There was not a problem with her computer. Ms. P’s attitude changed. She began to use her charts to block her classroom window and also locked her door.
I asked the principal to allow me to run a professional development program over a one month period every Tuesday afternoon afterschool for two hours for beginners. Ten teachers registered including Ms. P. The focus of that technology training was to bridge the appreciative domain for technology. The process was to get teachers to become motivated so that any frustration and misconception about technology integration in the classroom would be flipped with positive thinking of personal development (efficacy). My training plan was not developed in specific to the adapting of John Keller’s ARCS Model. But in parts and parcel as a reflection on the success of the training, saw a fit with Keller’s ARCS Model. The behavior of the learned faculty had improved, and this was as a result of how the group functioned during training. Their performance was as a result of their motivation, participation and effort.
Attention: Teachers participation was drawn with understanding and sharing in discussion, the use and function of the parts of the computer. Teachers were able to express among themselves with humor how they escaped their computer savvy students. They did this by pretending that their computer was too slow or needed fixing. Teachers participation in classroom activities, denial and truth, and expectations sparked debates. There was knowledge sharing and understanding of how they have wished to be able to use the computer to make their lesson plans more interesting, current and relevant. In essence teachers began to appreciate the affective domain of opportunity to learn. The training did not start without teachers throwing metaphors of blame against me. I was setting up computers in their classrooms without even knowing their low technology efficacy. I did not allow that to mar my purpose and posed a question of inquiry on how technology can assist individual instruction. Teachers were now having differences of opinion, and their conflict allowed me to rise as the mediator for variability in choices.
Relevance: Teachers began to appreciate the way technology was able to transform their class. This happened with accessing and expanding current information. I allowed teachers to explore choices that include application of technology for lesson inclusive of streaming video, software, academic learning programs, and videos from community educational resources. I gave several URL sites relevant to their subject areas to which they could match their needs. Teachers were anxious to model their choice of program that they believed would relate to objectives, content and context. The essential features of alignment of technology and unit titles were concrete evidence of technology adaptation to their classroom needs. Teachers sought to see how low end technology of the past are parallel to present development and what might satisfy future needs. Enhanced features of presentations included the use of hyperlinks to access information during presentation. The mode of inquiry was expanded in teacher groups by subjects and was overlapped by multi-subjects being taught.
Confidence: On covering two of the four planned classes, (1 each week) teachers began to express their views of how their lessons had begun to impact their students’ performance. Teachers in training had more than 10 years’ experience in the classroom. This told me that they had a passion for teaching, and if they were to keep their knowledge current and relevant then technology was not a choice but an essential tool. I threw out the question of what will be the prerequisite for teachers entering the system. All 10 teachers agreed that new teachers will have to be qualified with technology on two or three levels of application. This included satisfying personal needs, content discovery, and criteria for helping students to interact with technology. Required information that presented difficulty in finding for content development within a context was no longer a challenge. Accessing information via universal resource locators (URL) was opening a new frontier of information. Teachers were collaborating sharing lessons through their social network with each other. I was able to set up a Wiki page for the school and teachers began to create their homework page that students would access. My role expanded into teaching students how to set up and access their class Wiki. Success was the major result for teachers and their class using technology to enhance learning for all.
Satisfaction: By the end of the fourth class the participating faculty had begun to interact in formulating an inquiry plan. This was for working with the lowest 1/3 performers. this was to improve their writing skills using the computer. Teachers’ expectations were raised above the norm, and they saw positive outcomes of their efforts in the student’s performance. In consultation with the school administrators, I suggested that teachers should be recognized for their participation in training and also to motivate their expectations for classroom application. This lead to presenting teachers with a technology participating certification from the school’s principal. Ms. P had changed her attitude technology and endorsed an open door access. This allowed teachers to see how she was integrating technology, also using an interactive smart board with her class. I was now able to give Ms. P two Personal Computers that were set used a mini research center for math and music. Teachers had stop alienated me and were now willing to share their concerns. I was able to reach out to not just 10 but all faculty in introducing new technology resources. Additionally I taught teachers how to fix common technology glitches during presentations and setups.
I have seen where the ARCS model is a reflection of social Emotional and motivational Theories. Behavioral performance of hands on training can accelerate cognitive development. Motivation from the trainer’s perspective is a worthwhile gesture to spark performance of insight and creativity. Teachers’ possess an internal pride to hide their uncertainty regarding technology. This might be due to unfamiliarity with the school technology person or due to uncertainty of how low technology efficacy will affect their performance on the job. Cherry (2012) espouses Albert Bandura self-efficacy is “The belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations” (1995, p. 2). Erlbaum (1992) elicits "Efficacy beliefs influence how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave” (p.118). Bandura (1986) asserts” Motivation, performance, and feelings of frustration associated with repeated failures determine affect and behavior relations." The reality is for educational technologists to interact with their faculty and seek to prevent the “recurring decimal” of low esteem and demised self-efficacy brought on by frustration with technology uncertainties.
References:
Bonnie J. Shellnut, B. J. (1998). John Keller A Motivating Influence in the Field of Instructional Systems Design. Retrieved from: http://www.arcsmodel.com/pdf/Biographical%20Information.pdf
Cherry, K. (2012). About.com Psychology. What Is Self-Efficacy? Retrieved from: http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/self_efficacy.htm
Erlbaum, L. associates Inc. (1993). Perceived Self-Efficacy in Development and Function. Educational Psychologists 28(2), 117-148. (Albert Bandura, Stanford University). Retrieved from: http://www.centerforefficacyandresiliency.org/assets/docs/Perceived%20Self-Efficacy%20in%20Cognitive%20Development%20and%20Functioning.pdf
Learning-Theories.com (2012). ARCS Model of Motivational Design (Keller). Retrieved from: http://www.learning-theories.com/kellers-arcs-model-of-motivational-design.html
Pending two URLs response are:
(a) http://michellenotes.blogspot.com/
(b)http://ed4teachers.blgspot.com// (Having problems initating)
(c) http://rashidabrown.wordpress.com/ (Alternative responding URL)
(b)
(c) http://rashidabrown.wordpress.com/ (Alternative responding URL)
