Creating the Ishikawa diagram really helped me because it made the problem feel less simplified. Instead of seeing digital technologies as the issue by themselves, I started to see how everything is connected: teaching approach, curriculum, interaction, teacher preparation, and even institutional culture. That made the discussion much clearer for me. It also reinforced something I found in the readings: technology does not change teaching on its own. What really matters is how it is integrated into the learning process and whether it actually changes the way students participate, think, and build knowledge.
I found it very interesting how you used the Ishikawa diagram to broaden your understanding of the problem — it really helps to see the complexity involved instead of reducing everything to the technology itself. Your reflection also strongly aligns with the idea that the impact of technologies essentially depends on pedagogical practices and the intentions guiding their use.
ResponderExcluirI’m curious: based on the readings, which theories were you able to identify that can support the incorporation of technologies in education?
So from the readings, the main theories or frameworks I could identify were TPACK, Connectivism, and Laurillard’s Conversational Framework. I would also include Valente’s constructivist view of learning environments, because his text clearly supports the idea that technology only makes sense when it helps move teaching away from pure transmission and toward environments where students act and build knowledge.
ExcluirHello Rute! We are waiting for your timeline, as proposed in the new PBL. Remember that you need to have at least two blog posts each week!
ResponderExcluir