Now it might be because I exist in a country culture that seems to disregard copyright laws

as seen in its practices of photocopying whole books; selling and buying bootleg DVDs and similar

activities or it might be because I’m naïve in this respect. I suspect, the latter; but whichever it is,

my selection of technology tools and media, often did not consider if they were copyrighted and

required seeking permission for use. This leads me to identifying one of the aspects of selecting

media and technology that has become very important to me through exposure to this unit in

CUTL 5106. It is the ensuring or arranging for copyright clearance when using material that do

not belong to me.

Allow me to vindicate myself before I am thought to be a thief. As a primary school teacher

and even now Google is my go-to place for images to use in PowerPoint presentations; creating

teaching resources, such as documents, charts and in-class stimuli, and the like. I had always

assumed that all the images there were ‘free’ to use. The ones that had their copyright stamps

disfiguring the images, I was wise enough to avoid, but I erroneously believed all others were for

‘the picking’. The same thinking applied to youtube videos. When I became an academic, I came to

understood clearly that if one selected an established data-collection instrument for use in one’s

research, then permissions were to be sought. I was keenly aware that if I used figures and tables

from academic sources, that the source(s) were to be credited in my work with specific details on

1
where they were found. Yet, this knowledge didn’t transfer to the selection and use of pictures

and videos and other similar media and technological tools.

This unit and CUTL on a whole have opened my eyes. I now know that there are different

degrees of usage and that use of copyrighted material is only legal with the permissions of the

authors or developers. As this is sometimes a complicated process, I now know that I can use

material that are ‘labelled for reuse’ and for more flexibility, I can select material that are ‘labeled

for reuse with modification’ or ‘labeled for noncommercial reuse’. I must admit though the

options become significantly fewer. Nonetheless, my selection would remain within legal

parameters. Of course there are many who would think that I am ‘making something out of

nothing’.

My continued selection and use of media and technology will certainly adhere to the law

and I will encourage and teach my students to do the same because educational leadership, which

is my area of expertise, must be ethically practiced. Ignorance of the law is no excuse!

On the other hand and according to Dockstader (1999), technology integration “… is using

computers effectively and efficiently in the general content areas to allow students to learn how to

apply computer skills in meaningful ways … that

[enhance] student learning. The author adds

that it “… is having the curriculum drive

technology usage, not having technology drive the

curriculum” (p. 74). This definition presents a healthy view of the use and integration of

technology; one that places the achievement of student learning outcomes as the primary goal of

instruction, where educational technology is effectively and thoughtfully used to support that goal.

2
 One important thing I have learnt about technology integration is that students should be

given meaningful opportunities to develop their computer literacy and skills as part of the

learning process rather than being subjected to computer skills taught in isolation (Dockstader,

1999). My own experience in learning computer skills and using technological tools was the

isolated teaching with no application to how I might possibly use the technology. In other words,

the teaching was inauthentic and decontextualized. While this approach didn’t sit well with me, I

resigned myself to thinking that this is how it is done.

My eyes were opened, however, to the more authentic and contextualized approach

described by Dockstader (1999) as a new employee at the School of Education, UWI. Students on

a particular teacher professional development programme were exposed to activities and

assignments that required of them to interface with many types of educational technology in some

cases as a means to learning; at other times to demonstrate their learning and yet at other times

within their own teaching practice. They have also been encouraged to capture their teaching

using technology. These students are learning to integrate technology guided by the SOE’s

progamme objectives but also in a way that is intertwined with the learning process. As a

member of staff, therefore, I had to ‘follow suit’ through my teaching methods, creating the kinds

of learning opportunities that the SOE has come to be known for.

However, this practice was done almost intuitively. It is the Technology Integration Unit

within CUTL 5106 that for me has put a name and meaning to the practice. Now I have

opportunity to interface with educational technology (e.g. screencasts) that I have yet to learn and

integrate within my instruction.

3
 Acquiring computer skills and literacy as part of a meaningful learning process is important

to me because it highlights to me the kind of teacher/educator that I need to be with respect to

integrating technology so that my students develop into effective 21st century teachers and

teaching coaches. With these goals at the forefront of my professional thinking, I am urged to

continue to learn about, embrace and integrate new technologies that help me meet these goals.

Thus, courses that I teach in the future will continue to build interaction with technological tools

for not only student in-class activities, but for their out-of-class learning and assignments through

flipped classroom approaches as well as for communication, providing feedback on student work

in novel ways, for lecturers’ assessing teaching and coaching practice remotely and for improving

student teachers’ pedagogy within their schools.

The (re)design of new and existing courses, particularly at the masters level would include

such elements as described here. Presently, students’ learning experiences are limited to basic

access to resources from off myelearning, which unfortunately is used only as a repository,

neglecting the many other capabilities of the platform. Broadening the use of myelearning would

not be the sole enhancement, though. As the courses are improved through converting some face-

to-face sessions to online ones, making the courses blended, the integration of technological tools

would become a must. For example, my MEd Leadership students may be required to use a

selected real-time collaboration tool, such as google docs or Zoom, to conduct organizational

diagnosis with their staffs and reflect on the process. This is very different from how the

assignment reads now, which asks students to write a report on a hypothetical diagnosis of their

schools. The activity above that integrates technology would be of greater benefit to my students

and their schools professionally and personally, improving the way the nation’s schools function.

4
References:

Dockstader, J. (1999). Teachers of the 21st century know the what, why, and how of technology

integration. T. H. E. Journal, 26(6), p. 73.

University of Missouri-Columbia (2003). 13 things to consider when selecting media. Author.