Post 3 - Digital Tools

 

Digital Tools (Small, 2022).

Online activity 6 - Digital tool demonstrator (massey.ac.nz)

Online activity 6 required us to identify and explore a digital tool, and present it with consideration to its multimodal characteristics to support learning. The tool I selected was Miro - an online, collaborative whiteboarding tool - the functionality of which enables presentation, collaboration, creation, interaction, and gamification of learning. The wide array of characteristics and affordances that made this tool applicable to the digital learning environment are outlined in the artefact linked at the beginning of this blog. The cons list was much smaller, however the inability of the tool to provide functionality for video conferencing was a let-down - although it is possible to use this tool while also using video conferencing software simultaneously, such as MS Teams.

This activity encouraged me to step out of my comfort zone slightly, which has been shaped by the limitations imposed by the classified nature of the learning system within my organisation (digital learning tools we utilize do not require an external internet connection and can either be housed internally, or purchased as a stand-alone system such as those afforded by simulation, emulation, and virtual reality - to name a few). While Miro could not be introduced into my organisation, it was worthwhile to consider the affordances of external technologies that I was unfamiliar with to help shape the way I think about the affordances of those technologies we do have access to.

A key affordance of tools such as Miro, as identified in the required readings for this module, is its provision for ubiquitous learning. Ubiquitous learning here refers to learning which takes place in an everyday environment and is supported by learning technologies which enable learning 'anytime, anywhere' (Haniya & Rusch, 2017). Miro, for example, can be accessed across a range of devices, so long as internet connectivity is provided. One key consideration for ubiquitous learning, as pointed out by Wishart (2018), is that where learners are required to utilize digital technologies to access and interact with the learning, there must be consideration of the provision of such technology. Within my own context this has shifted my thinking towards ensuring the analysis I conduct for the integration of new technologies includes consideration of technology cost, including the ongoing and upgrade costs. This will aid in ensuring that the technology remains accessible to the learners, and that the owners of the technology are aware of expenditure prior to purchase.

References

Haniya, S., & Rusch, A. (2017). Ubiquitous learning: Spatio-temporal dimensions of e-learning. B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), e-learning ecologies: Principles for new learning and assessment (pp. 46–64). Routledge. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/massey/reader.action?docID=4809823&ppg=53

Small, L. (2022). Digital Tools [digital visualization on the internet].  https://www.canva.com/design/DAFIgMgYFdc/baegYUoB920lvmnuB27E-w/edit?utm_content=DAFIgMgYFdc&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link2&utm_source=sharebutton

Wishart, J. (2018). Ethical considerations in the incorporation of mobile and ubiquitous technologies into teaching and learning in educational contexts. S. Yu, M. Ally, & A. Tsinakos (Eds.), Mobile and ubiquitous learning: An international handbook (pp. 81–93). Springer.