Teaching Problem Solving in Technology Rich Environments

Introducing our Discussion on Problem Solving in Technology Rich Environments

Colleagues,

The United States has participated in an international study that has brought attention to teaching adults how to use computer technology in problem solving.  Sponsored by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the study is known as The Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), and its data collection instrument is called the Survey of Adult Skills (SAS).  “The survey measures adults’ proficiency in key information-processing skills - literacy, numeracy and problem solving in technology-rich environments - and gathers information and data on how adults use their skills at home, at work and in the wider community.” http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/ 

The PIAAC SAS was administered on a computer to a broadly-ranging sample of American adults, not only adult basic skills learners. The survey is now also available for a fee as Education and Skills Online, which may be of interest to adult basic skills programs, adult basic skills researchers, and others. http://www.oecd.org/skills/ESonline-assessment/. The PIAAC SAS has shifted the discussion in our field about what technology skills adult basic skills learners need to a new realm that many of us do not yet fully understand. This problem solving domain assumes basic technology or digital literacy skills, and assesses higher order thinking skills applied in environments that offer and expect the regular use of computers and possibly also portable digital devices.

We are fortunate this week to have with us prominent researchers who have looked at and written about the PIAAC PSTRE data: Dr. Jill Castek formerly with Portland State University in Oregon, and now with the University of Arizona; Dr. Stephen Reder, a professor emeritus at Portland State University; and Jenifer Vanek, a Doctoral Candidate in Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Minnesota, and the Director of the IDEAL Consortium for distance and blended learning sponsored by World Education. We also have with us experienced numeracy and math, and technology skills practitioners Edward Latham from Maine, and Kenneth Tamarkin from Massachusetts, each also with many years of experience in teaching adults both digital literacy and problem solving.

I hope we will have a lively discussion this week, with many good questions from participants in our LINCS Communities of Practice.  Let’s begin today with our panelists introducing themselves, followed by Jill Castek’s description of the Portland State University Learner Web project key findings from their Institute for Museum and Library Services-funded research, and from other Learner Web research findings on digital literacy and problem solving. On Tuesday we will focus on questions about the PIAAC Survey of Adult Skills and in particular the PSTRE Domain, and we will also hear from Jen Vanek about how to apply the findings from PSTRE research in adult basic skills (including ESL/ESOL) classrooms, research that will be published soon in a PIAAC paper. On Wednesday we will hear Kenny Tamarkin's and Ed Latham’s thoughts in response to Jen Vanek’s findings and recommendations; I hope we will also hear from many other teachers with questions and comments about how to teach problem solving skills in an environment that offers and expects the use of technology. Later, on Wednesday or early Thursday, Steve Reder will describe the framework he has proposed in his PIAAC paper on PSTRE. On Thursday we will hear Ed Latham’s and Kenny Tamarkin’s reactions to Steve’s recommendations, and I hope we will have reactions from other teachers participating in this discussion. Thursday will be the last opportunity for participants to pose questions that our panelists can respond to. On Friday panelists will have an opportunity to answer remaining questions and to reflect on the week’s discussion, both on questions they have been asked and perhaps also on what they have not been asked.

I am greatly looking forward to this discussion, to our panelists’ presentations of their research, to practitioner and research panelists’ reactions to the research, and to questions and comments from members of the LINCS Technology and Learning, Program Management, and other Communities of Practice.

And now, panelists, please introduce yourselves.

David J. Rosen, Moderator

Technology and Learning, and Program Management CoPs

djrosen123@gmail.com

Comments

Thanks, Steve, for this really interesting summary (and the report itself). These findings are particularly interesting for our work at Digital Promise, as we seek to support and promote innovative uses of technology that empower adult learners. Seeing the deep embedding of digital literacy in broad outcomes is affirming. I also had a chance to talk with two of your former colleagues -- Gloria and Jill -- just yesterday. Fortuitous timing that I am today reading some of your research! I wrote a guest blog for DLAER, and Gloria, Jill, and I hope to deepen our work together.

Steve, as soon as I read the layout of stages you shared I starting thinking about how many students I have had in each stage in the last few years. My thoughts were that very few have come to me in the lower stages. In exploring the document you linked, I was relieved to see that 83.7% of the adult population is in the digital literacy stage (Table 2 pg 15). Was this 2013 data?  If so, I keep reflecting on how much technology changes and mutates each year and how much more it becomes parts of our learner's lives. I am inspired to start collecting some data with my students and with the staff I work with to see what our learners self identify as in terms of stages today. Has anyone done this lately and can share?

When Ed writes " I keep reflecting on how much technology changes and mutates each year and how much more it becomes parts of our learner's lives,” I think he makes a key point. In the 1980s, I usually correctly assumed that almost all of my students had never touched a computer prior to their class with me. Therefore, it seemed somewhat straightforward that we could come up with a standard sequence of computer skills. Today most of our students have had varying experiences with computers, as well as with other electronic devices such as cell phones. In general, it seems that a just in time approach should be most effective when helping a student successfully work on the problem solving aspect of a project while simultaneously addressing any computer skills that will also be required. When I see two or more students stumbling over a computer skill, we then have an impromptu skill lesson. If it is just one student, then they get individual help either from me or another student.

For the most part, my experience working with learners aligns with the research findings that have been presented. The one finding that seems to clash with my personal experience is the performance of women. In general, I have seen the women I work with perform as well as or better than men. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that in my class, being compliant meant striving to become an independent problem solver.

Colleagues,

As expected, this has been a lively and thoughtful discussion. We have today left for questions, and tomorrow for additional comments and perhaps panelists' and participants takeaways.

Here are some of my questions for our panelists and discussion participants for today. I will post a few more later today.

1. Why should adult basic skills teachers care about the PIAAC PS-TRE findings?

2. How do the PIAAC PS-TRE findings connect with adult college and career readiness standards?

3. What additional advice do you have for how teachers can make good use of the PIAAC findings, how they can successfully incorporate them in their teaching of reading, writing, numeracy, English language skills for immigrants, financial literacy, health, science, social studies and/or other content areas?

4. Some of you may have noticed that sometimes I write the acronym this way, PS-TRE; sometimes this way, PSTRE; and sometimes (although not in this discussion) "PST-RE". I believe that the official PIAAC abbreviation is "PS-TRE," where the hyphen's role is to separate Problem Solving and Technology Rich Environments. I try to use this when referring to PIAAC-related assessments, studies or papers. However, I prefer the other two. In my mind PSTRE, without the hyphen, suggests no separation, that this is really about problem solving that requires, benefits from, or draws upon digital tools. For grammatical reasons I also like PST-RE, i.e problem solving in technology-rich environments.

Regardless of the acronym, however, what does technology "richness" mean? Is this a neutral term that just refers to having computers, or possibly portable digital devices, available or expected? Or is there an assumption that these "riches" should be used, because they are better tools? If so, do you agree that the tools are better for all kinds of problem solving?  Or do you believe they are better for some kinds of problems and, if so which kinds?

5. Some panelists and participants may be interested in the problems that using technology sometimes creates. Panelists, and others, can you tell us what kinds of problems you see that technology creates for us when we use it in trying to solve problems?  If you have suggestions for how to think about these kinds of problems, and how to solve them, please share them!

David J. Rosen, Moderator

Technology and Learning, and Program Management CoPs

djrosen123@gmail.com

 

1. Why should adult basic skills teachers care about the PIAAC PS-TRE findings?

There are so many pressures on educators at all levels today. It can be difficult for many teachers to be aware of different ways the teacher might be able to help learners find success. A good number of teachers come into Adult Education instruction without teaching as their primary vocation, but life brings them over to where they belong and all adult education teachers I have met care about their learners and want to help the learner find success. The PS-TRE assessments are checking for some of that "real life" stuff we hear as teachers but often have difficulty tapping into when we look for learning or practice materials. I am still struggling to find math word problems that would actually describe a situation in life; these problems are so unrealistic these days! As we continue to explore ways teachers can help foster PS-TRE skills, it will be important to communicate what those skills look and feel like, why they are so needed for our learner's success, and what examples or resources exist for teachers to use to implement these ideas into practice. That last element is the one I find most challenging and the one that will take the most energy everywhere. Our very structure of our educational systems may offer challenges in creating learning projects that might help students prepare in authentic ways. Here in Maine, the teaching staff in adult ed is almost all part time which makes supporting teachers in any positive shifts a challenge as well. In spite of all of these challenges, the discussions that have started this week help all teachers begin to be aware of how problem solving and technology skills may need to be blended much more than we currently do. Communicating with each other often and frequently to share what we know, what we try and what we experience is important.

2. How do the PIAAC PS-TRE findings connect with adult college and career readiness standards?

I can see many elements of the CCRS that focus on the thinking involved in the learning and that is a good thing. Problem solving in general may not be quite as high a focus as I personally believe it needs to be, but there are elements of the CCRS that do share the importance of learners being able to not only make, but justify choices given different context. The standards are set up in a way that would easily allow PS-TRE skills development, BUT there seems to be a big disconnect still between the aspirations laid out in the standards and current practice/system operations. Most everyone is shifting and adapting still. There may be some programs or states that are much further along than others, but my perception is that most of the practitioners and programs still are not fully integrating the standards yet. Change takes time. I feel that the adoption of PS-TRE as well as CCRS can be a mutually beneficial compilation of efforts in most programs. This is much work to do on both fronts of course.

3. What additional advice do you have for how teachers can make good use of the PIAAC findings, how they can successfully incorporate them in their teaching of reading, writing, numeracy, English language skills for immigrants, financial literacy, health, science, social studies and/or other content areas?

I keep seeing the individual's career and college aspirations as a key focal area that allows for incorporation. I have explored many career fields but I know I am quite ignorant of so many of the specifics of daily life and skills in many career options. Working with my students, I get the opportunity to learn so much while my learners are learning those real life problem solving skills in each field. Living so remotely, technology has to be involved and my students have all "bought in" to the need to use technology as a tool in our explorations. An example might help. I just met a new student that wants to be an Animal Control Officer. As we dove into ONet information, we both learned much, but I learned specifics of those things I knew I was not going to be able to offer authentic exercises or activities with. With that in mind, the learner is building communications skills to digitally connect with people in the state that do this job. She spent a good chunk of time just trying to find out how one finds people in this occupation in our county and then in the state. She has drafted a few letters to individuals and has received some response. These communications have progressed into voice appointments set up for the next few weeks. Meanwhile, some resources were shared by the professionals and the student and I are working on those resources for our other academic projects. This process requires me to be super flexible at first but as I am getting connected to more and more real world professionals and their experiences, I find this is getting easier and easier. There is even talk of some mentorships or internships being discussed with some of the contacts locally!

4. what does technology "richness" mean? 

I know there has been much discussion in other threads about what constitutes "technology" and I have to confess that I really don't have lots of energy for that delineation. In my life, I have rarely had a choice of what was available or what format. Often it my processing has been 1) reflect on what exists and what I want to accomplish, 2) review what my options are and what each one might offer me on my path to the direction(s) I determined in step 1, 3) Give one of the options a try and go back to step 1 to assess progress. When necessary I need to jump to other options. Sure, knowing the one BEST tool to go to right off the bat is more efficient, but this longer process helps me discover so many other uses of tools and other options that I may be able to pull into play in another situation. Being flexible with the tools available is much more important that ensuring I have the best tool available in my experience. 

5. What kinds of problems you see that technology creates for us when we use it in trying to solve problems and how might you solve them?

When the focus is centered on getting the technology to work, too much energy is getting diverted from other learning. Sometimes this is not always bad, but if a learner is in a situation where time and maximization of time is important, such diversions in learning get in the way. It is important for teachers to always have or entertain the idea of other options or alternatives. Because of the many diverse learners I have had the pleasure of working with, there are some actions for which I can efficiently process on desktop, laptop, smartphone, simple flip phone (by calling someone with other tech usually), and even a pencil and string has come in handy at times.

I often find my ignorance of other careers limits my abilities to help create authentic problem solving experiences within the context the learner needs. As I mentioned above, I am working to connect more and more with real people in all sorts of careers willing to share and educate. They are becoming part of my social network (see below). There are online sites that I am starting to explore that are also helping to educate me about other careers I never knew existed. ONet's career cluster system has offered me great information, but I find it a bit overwhelming so I am trying to make a more visual representation of all that data into an app that may be more usable for me. 

I aspire to always be looking at how something might be done with this tool or that one. Not everyone is comfortable with that never ending activity and I am not sure it should be expected of everyone. This is were collaboration with others in our field and establishing good social networks is vital in my opinion. I have reached out to my social network on things I was clueless about and in just a few hours I was so educated because my social network continues to get bigger every day. We have so many talented and experienced educators in this country, getting us all to easily communicate with each other is challenging, but powerful work that can help so many find success. If you are ever in doubt about how to do something or what options might exist, a network of peers can be instrumental in helping you realize that we educators do not have to be the sole holders of all knowledge. Together we are stronger than any one of us and I am thankful every day for those I can digitally connect with at any time. They make me not only feel smarter, they help me find more options to build successes with my learners. What tool can be more valuable than that in our efforts?

Thanks for the great questions, David! 

1. Why should adult basic skills teachers care about the PIAAC PS-TRE findings?

I think that in today's world, using technology to solve problems lies at the core of both learning and daily activities.  As the tech-rich environments continue to grow and develop, we must all learn to adapt and change in response to changes in the devices, tools, web resources, and technologies around us.  Part of keeping up with the pace of change is developing a disposition around technology that is responsive and accepting of change and evolution.   

2. How do the PIAAC PS-TRE findings connect with adult college and career readiness standards?

We need to accept that using technology skillfully and flexibly is a part of most all workplace settings.  And the standards seek to open the door to educators to address these important needs in our changing world.  The standards provide an avenue to address these important problem solving skills and to include them as readily as we would literacy and math in our curricula.

3. What additional advice do you have for how teachers can make good use of the PIAAC findings, how they can successfully incorporate them in their teaching of reading, writing, numeracy, English language skills for immigrants, financial literacy, health, science, social studies and/or other content areas?

My advice is to not feel afraid to experiment and take risks.  No one knows everything about the online environment and how to work within it, however we as educators are often put in the position as expert who pass on our knowledge.  Embracing PSTRE and acknowledging your own emerging navigation of this new terrain positions you as a co-learner, which can be an important shift in the classroom that disrupts the expert/novice binary that pervades too many classrooms.  We're all learners, and being a part of the learning process along with adult learners can lead to true empowerment for learners.  

1. Why should adult basic skills teachers care about the PIAAC PS-TRE findings?

First, I think the PS-TRE gives us another way to think about authentic integration of technology skills in ABE classrooms. Second, by framing use of technologies as a creative process or problem solving task, learners can learn to adopt a more flexible view of technology tool use. I think I'm writing from the perspective of a member of the Northstar digital literacy assessment team here. Northstar is great for measuring learner competency on digital literacy skills as framed by the assessment but falls short in it's capacity to test the multiple means by which the embedded tasks can be accomplished.  

2. How do the PIAAC PS-TRE findings connect with adult college and career readiness standards?  Just drawing text from my brief to save some time here.

CCRS aligns with PS-TRE in two ways. First the standards embed technology into several anchor standards, including:

Anchor 5: Make strategic use of digital media and visual displays of data to express information and enhance understanding of presentations” (Pimentel, 2013, p. 32)

Anchor 6: Using technology and the Internet to produce and publish writing and to interact and collaborate with others” (Pimentel, 2013, p. 28).

Additionally, the CCRS - Lifelong Learning framework supports instruction of non-academic skills that are critical to academic success at the postsecondary level. It defines lifelong learning skills as foundational, social emotional skills that support learning and engagement.: “student thinking, self-management, and social interaction, enabling the pursuit of education and career goals” (McGarrah, 2015, p. 1). These skills are considered essential for motivation, persistence, and action required to continually build and utilize knowledge in a technological world.

3. What additional advice do you have for how teachers can make good use of the PIAAC findings, how they can successfully incorporate them in their teaching of reading, writing, numeracy, English language skills for immigrants, financial literacy, health, science, social studies and/or other content areas?

4.  What does technology "richness" mean? Is this a neutral term that just refers to having computers, or possibly portable digital devices, available or expected? Or is there an assumption that these "riches" should be used, because they are better tools? If so, do you agree that the tools are better for all kinds of problem solving?  Or do you believe they are better for some kinds of problems and, if so which kinds?

I'd like to answer 3 & 4 together.  I think the findings should motivate teachers to start thinking about explicit support for problem solving in their classrooms. Ed mentioned earlier that technology is constantly changing. Given that reality it's impossible to think about digital literacy development as a sequence of constantly teaching discrete tasks.  Viewing technology use in real life as a "problem" might shift it from a list of skills to encourage learners experiment and creatively apply them.  I see this as a richness. PSTRE its the sort of use that supports the development of resilience to the disruption to implicitly required new technologies in daily tasks.

Jen

Likely splitting hairs, but this has been on my mind since I read David's post last night.  He wrote " the official PIAAC abbreviation is "PS-TRE," where the hyphen's role is to separate Problem Solving and Technology Rich Environments". That is true.  In first draft of the research to practice brief I didn't attend to the PIAAC abbreviation convention and that was pointed out. I now understand why.  PS-TRE, hyphenated as such, I think, suggest that there has always been problem solving (& study of the cognitive process of problem solving) and that with more and more technology (a tech rich environment) the nature of problem solving has changed. (Or, there is a new sub category of problem solving that needs to be studied or instructed.) Fewer tasks in a tech rich world are routine for many people because of popularized use of new ICTs. The old way of doing things often doesn't work anymore, so one now has a problem.

Thanks, Jen, for your question about the implications of the finding of digital embedding of earnings but not of employment status.  Let me share some of the implications for policy & practice that my paper developed -- I hope these provide some context at least for starting to address your question.  

There are a couple implications of the digital equity and digital inclusion findings that future researchers and policymakers should consider carefully. One implication is that different strategies may be needed to facilitate digital inclusion among specific populations at different points in the digital inclusion pathway. The overall pattern of digital equities is similar when comparing men to women, or Black and Hispanic groups to Whites, or foreign-born to U.S.-born adults. Men, Blacks and Hispanics, and the foreign-born are less likely than their comparison groups (Women, Whites and U.S.-born, respectively) to have passed each barrier in the pathway prior to the Digital Literacy stage: they are less likely to have ever used a computer; they are less likely to agree to use a computer even if they have used one before; and they are less likely to have the basic computer skills needed for doing certain tasks even if they agree to try. These inequities are apparent even after differences in age, education, employment status and other covariates are taken into account.

Yet once these groups do reach the Digital Literacy stage, their digital equity experiences diverge. Groups that showed less digital inclusion at all stages of the pathway leading up to Digital Literacy have different relative profiles within the Digital Literacy stage. Blacks and Hispanics display lower PSTRE proficiencies and more ICT use outside of work than comparable Whites. Men show higher PSTRE proficiencies than comparable women within the Digital Literacy stage (women and men do not have statistically significant differences in ICT use within the Digital Literacy stage). U.S.-born adults have statistically significant, higher PS-TRE proficiencies than comparable foreign-born adults within the Digital Literacy stage (U.S-born and foreign-born adults do not have statistically significantly differences in ICT use within the Digital Literacy stage).

These digital equity findings do suggest that consideration should be given to having a variety of approaches to inclusion at different pathway stages, perhaps tailored to the different barriers involved for the various groups.

The findings about digital embedding of economic and social outcomes also have some important implications. The lack of digital embedding of current employment status is striking given the strong digital embedding of earnings among those who are working.  Although the interpretation of this will need to be clarified by additional research, it suggests that very different rationale and policies may be needed for digital literacy training in an employment search or job development context than in an incumbent worker context.

Further implications about incumbent worker training and technology support may follow from better understanding of the finding that ICT use in the workplace is embedded in workers’ earnings but their ICT use outside of work is not. The digital embedding of all of the social outcomes examined – social trust, volunteerism, political efficacy and health – may indicate promising policy and program directions for blending support of technology use with other social aims and initiatives. The digital embedding of general health is of particular interest in this regard because of the large economic returns associated with improved health status; such cost-savings could go a long way to fueling new education and training programs for adults.

 

Steve, I really appreciate your comment, “One implication is that different strategies may be needed to facilitate digital inclusion among specific populations at different points in the digital inclusion pathway,” along with those that followed. Differentiation and contextualization are popular terms in our field, and I believe that is what you are discussing. I am wondering if someone might comment on how strategies might be differentiated among the different groups that you mention. An example would be great. Thanks. Leecy

Colleagues,

This has been a fruitful week of discussion on an extremely important topic. As you may know, in addition to featuring prominently as one of the three PIAAC survey domains, as problem solving in technology rich environments, digital literacy and problem solving gets important attention in Title II of the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act. This creates a new opportunity for adult basic skills programs to include students' -- and practitioners' -- learning effective ways to use digital technology in every area of adult basic skills: basic literacy, English language learning, numeracy and mathematics, science, social studies, work and career-related learning, and perhaps in non-cognitive, so-called "soft skills" as well. Driving the effective use of basic skills, work and careers, and all of our daily living skills or "lifewide" activities are critical thinking skills including problem solving as applied in this wide range of contexts.

Our conversation this week has been about digital technology skills in the service of problem solving. However, the conversation has only just begun. As digital technology expands into new realms, as it certainly will, there will be new aspects to this question that we may only now dream about, or have no inkling of yet. So let us consider this intense and thoughtful week as the commencement of a discussion that we will continue, and perhaps periodically re-visit.

I want to thank our panelists for their deep engagement with this important aspect of teaching and learning, in this case with a focus on digital technology and learning. Jill, Jen, Steve, Ed and Kenny, I greatly appreciate the contributions you have made to our field with your research and/or your commitment to teaching that empowers, as well as the insights you have provided in this week's discussion. I hope you will all remain as members of the Technology and Learning Community of Practice, and that as new questions and issues arise we may benefit from your thinking. I plan to summarize this discussion, but it may take a couple of weeks to absorb and reflect before I can do that.

David J. Rosen, Moderator

Technology and Learning, and Program Management CoPs

djrosen123@gmail.com

 

 

Technology and Learning Colleagues,

One of our most fruitful discussions here (so far, 2625 views, 61 comments) began in late October 2016. In a fascinating article on data literacy from Forbes Magazine, I noticed a reference to the PIAAC findings that the U.S. was 21st out of 23 peer countries in Problem Solving in Technology Rich Environments (PSTRE) skills, and wondered if the article might address basic data literacy, the kind that focuses on numeracy skills, interpretation of basic data, and critical thinking skills that could and should be taught in adult basic skills classes.

It does! It defines four basic data literacy skills areas, and gives a well-illustrated concrete example of an employee using these PSTRE skills.

Could you see teaching data literacy to your students? If so, how?

David J. Rosen, Moderator

Technology and Learning CoP

djrosen123@gmail.com

 

Great question!  

Using data and understanding the implications are critical in today's complex world and practical for our student's daily life experiences. I could easily see how understanding big data could help people discriminate between fake and real news. Additionally, we are a culture of big data but we don't know what to do with it. 

I found a website called Oceans of Data that has some ideas and lesson plans for using data to promote learning in the STEM subjects. I'd love to hear how/ if this information could be used in a classroom. 

Kathy