Pedagogical models for Online Education

This article is simplified overview of the paper titled “The PICRAT Model for Technology Integration in Teacher Preparation” by Royce Kimmons, Brigham Young University; Charles R. Graham, Brigham Young University; & Richard E. West, Brigham Young University

In the last two decades many models for technology integration of education have been proposed by the researchers but not much has been done to study the efficacy and accuracy and value in education.

Kimmons and Hall have proposed six criteria for determining quality of education technology integration models.
Six Criteria and Guiding Questions for Evaluating Technology Integration Models for Student Teachers are:

1. Clarity. Is the model sufficiently simple, clear, and easy to understand, with no hidden complexities?
2. Compatibility. Does the model complement/support existing educational practices deemed valuable to teachers?
3. Fruitfulness. Does the model elicit fruitful thinking as teachers grapple with problems of technology integration?
4. Technology Role. Does the model treat technology integration as a means for achieving specific pedagogical or other benefits (rather than an end in itself)?
5. Scope. Is the model sufficiently parsimonious to ignore aspects of technology integration not useful to teachers, but sufficiently comprehensive to guide their practice?
6. Student Focus. Does the model clearly emphasize students and student outcomes?

The PICRAT Model

Based on the criteria proposed by Kimmons and Hall , PICRAT model by Royce and Grahams is explained here.

This models looks at the technology integration with two perspective. Students perspective -“What are students doing with the technology? and Techers perspective “ How does this use of technology impact the teacher’s pedagogy?”

PIC: Passive, Interactive, Creative

Students can learn in three modes while using technology

1. Passive learning (receiving content passively). Converting Notes to PowerPoint or showing YouTube videos is passive learning for the students. Listening, observing, and reading are essential but not sufficient learning skills.
2. Interactive learning (interacting with content and/or other learners).Much lasting and impactful learning occurs only when students are interactively engaged through exploration, experimentation, collaboration, and other active behaviors. Through technology this learning may involve playing games, taking computerized adaptive tests, manipulating simulations, or using digital flash cards to support recall. This interactive level of student use is fundamentally different from passive uses, as students are directly interacting with the technology (or with other learners through the technology), and their learning is mediated by that interaction
3. Creative learning (constructing knowledge via the construction of artifacts. The creative level of student technology use bypasses this limitation by having students use the technology as a platform to construct learning artifacts that instantiate learning mastery. Lasting, meaningful learning occurs best as students apply concepts and skills by constructing real-world or digital artifacts to solve problems (Papert & Harel, 1991), aligning with the highest level of Bloom’s revised taxonomy of learning (Anderson, Krathwohl, & Bloom, 2001).

RAT: Replacement, Amplification, Transformation

Like PIC, the acronym RAT identifies three potential responses to a target question: In any educational context technology may have one of three effects on a teacher’s pedagogical practice: replacement, amplification, or transformation.

1. At the first level teachers who are beginning to use technology to support their teaching tend to use it to replace previous practice, such as digital flashcards for paper flashcards, electronic slides for an overhead projector, or an interactive whiteboard for a chalkboard. That is, they transfer an existing pedagogical practice into a newer medium with no functional improvement to their practice.

2. The second level of RAT, amplification, represents teachers’ use of technology to improve learning practices or outcomes. Examples include using review features of Google Docs for students to provide each other more efficient and focused feedback on essays or using digital probes to collect data for analysis in LoggerPro, thereby improving data management and manipulation.

3. The transformation level of RAT uses technology to enable, not merely strengthen, the pedagogical practices enacted. Taking away the technology would eliminate that pedagogical strategy, as technology’s affordances create the opportunity for the pedagogy and intertwines with it (Kozma, 1991). For example, students might gather information about their local communities through GPS searches on mobile devices, analyze seismographic data using an online simulation, or interview a paleontological expert at a remote university using a Web video conferencing service such as Zoom (https://zoom.us). None of these experiences could have occurred via alternative, lower tech means.

PICRAT Matrix

With the three answer levels for each question, we construct a matrix showing nine possibilities for a student teacher to evaluate any technology integration scenario. Using PIC as the y-axis and RAT as the x-axis, the hierarchical matrix (progressing from bottom-left to top-right), which we designate as PICRAT, attempts to fulfill Kuhn’s (2013) call that theoretical models provide suggestions for new and fruitful actions (Figure 5). With this matrix, a teacher can ask the two guiding questions of any technology use and place each lesson plan, activity, or instructional practice into one of the nine cells.

Using PICRAT Model for Designing Online Platforms

One of the prime reason for the failure of Online Teaching platforms is focus on technology rather than education. The top leadership in a EdTech are primarily with technology domain experience with limited control with the educationists. The main indicator of EdTech, Return of Education (RoE) has not shown significant improvement over years.