Adam’s eLearning

Owen’s post discusses, in part, educational benefits for students designing their own LAMS tasks. I have experienced similar benefits I think, in teaching as opposed to learning about a particular topic. In leading SRE (special religious education) at my local public school, for example, I often learn more about a particular subject (or study more fervently in preparation perhaps), than if I am simply preparing for a Bible study which I will be attending but not leading. Incumbent with the role of leader or convener of a particular learning experience is the need to know the topic well, because in the execution of the learning experience, we know our planning and preparation will be tested. Likewise students designing LAMS tasks for their peers or teacher are under more pressure to perform than the recipients of a learning experience.

["Computers & Kids” picture by Tanya Ryno]

I read Karl Fisch’s post about attitudes surrounding technological illiteracy and some of the discussion it provoked. Poignant to me is the juxtaposition of the teacher’s need to espouse confidence in their own knowledge and abilities (and with that, the veracity of their opinions); with their need to be humble and malleable when subjected to the pedagogical challenges new technologies pose. At the crux of this ‘battle’ I think is the need for teachers to admit their ignorance about something or that they may know less about something than their students. Could admitting ignorance about something before a class facilitate the delivery of a valuable lesson? The teacher could share a learning journey with their students, and in so doing, the skills needed to learn independently. Perhaps this could be an opportunity for teachers and students to engage with, to use Matthew Kearney’s words, the “social & reflective processes involved in authentic learning”. I remember speaking with a child about computer use at his school; he disdained the teachers at his school that knew less about ICT than he or his peers, but refused to admit it. Such attitudes could teach children not to address knowledge deficits and openly seek new understanding; but to feel embarrassment or shame.

[I have found it a boon in SRE (special religious education) classes to ask the class for help if I have a problem with the ICT in the classroom (admittedly, I’ve been blessed with capable and helpful students). On most occasions one of them is able to get hardware or software running again; and on the rare occasions it’s something neither of us can fix (such as realising a need to remount a SMART Board), a learning journey is commenced which we can continue together at another time.]

[“macbook” picture by Swansea Photographer)

In reading Seymour Papert’s essay, “The Gears of My Childhood”, I was reminded of my own first forays into programming on my first computer, a Dick Smith VZ200. Even with its (seemingly far less intuitive than Logo) rudimentary version of the MS Basic programming language, the possibilities for writing programs to serve the realisation of my own ideas became increasingly apparent to me, because, as Papert states, “… [the computer] can take on a thousand forms and can serve a thousand functions, it can appeal to a thousand tastes”. However, like building sandcastles, as Idit Harel states, constructionism seems partially about providing the conditions necessary for discovery through open ended play. I certainly did not become aware of programming possibilities through ordered, teacher directed instruction (or instructionism); but rather through open ended tinkering and self directed inspection and reverse engineering of the open source programs which were available for the computer.

[“beach (with sandcastle)” picture by benefit of hindsight]

I just read “Constructionism, Learning by Design, and Project Based Learning” by Seungyeon Han and Kakali Bhattacharya, from the Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology, University of Georgia.

Here are some suggestions from the article which I found of particular interest:

• Provide a time for students to get to know one another (or learn to enjoy one another’s company) before expecting them to work productively and cohesively together.
• Have a warm up exercise before recommencing classwork after lunch, in order to energise the group again.
• Distributing amongst the class, printed copies of ideas which have been brainstormed, in order to consolidate and affirm individual opinion.

Inherent in project based, student centred, learning (PBL) seems to me to be an emphasis on well thought out, clear instructions and explanations from the teacher. To enable this type of teaching, I think the teacher needs a very good grasp of the whole lesson or unit topic, from inception to completion, in order to facilitate their playing the role of “eye in the sky” as described in this article.

[“The Classroom Game” picture by danzden]

(my Meccano model cable car)

I thought Amelia raised some interesting questions in her blog post referring to Jamie McKenzie’s article in The Educational Technology Journal about forcefully stuffing the curriculum turkey. I agree that ICT is a steep and unnerving learning curve for most of us non-digital natives, however, I think it is sometimes true that we need to do ‘something’ for ‘something’s’ sake. I had my first go at building a Meccano model the other day (recommended for ages 8 and up) and I found it extremely daunting at first – trying to follow all those purely architectural style sequenced drawings with no word sentences to describe what’s actually happening along the way. I had to focus, for a time, on Meccano, for Meccano’s sake; in order to acquire the learning which would then free my mind to ponder the ways in which I might employ Meccano for my own purposes.

I too watched the above “Microsoft school of the future” You Tube video which Amelia mentions, and about which several of us have commented (especially as the clip was shown during a Sociology of Education lecture). Of particular interest to me (and others in our course I’ve noticed) were the comments from Environmental Studies teacher, Kathy Lee (6’33” into the 10’20” video), who spoke about teacher sentiment at the school, that they need “to use the technology to teach, not just teach the technology”. She rates the [added technology experience at the school], for her personally, as a “4 out of 10” in terms of its importance to pedagogy because she depends far more on personal interaction for her teaching methods. I’ve heard some educationalists say that all teachers need is the necessary, time, school commitment and resources in technology for there to be a greater uptake in ICT in teaching. Kathy Lee’s comments are interesting because here is a teacher at a technology focused school which is extremely well resourced, where all teachers are presumably tech-savvy, yet she seems, personally, to prefer more traditional teaching methods.

I found this ( abcbreakfastradio30jan08 ) ABC breakfast radio interview with Michael Cowling, IT teacher at Aberfoyle Park High School, an encouraging example of ICT implementation in the classroom. Cowling speaks of possibilities for ICT implementation in education in ways such as were detailed by Matthew Kearney this semester. In this interview, Cowling reiterates the need for teachers to utilise in education the technologies which are already a part of students’ lives. He provides some startling data from a survey he conducted at his high school. Of the students he surveyed in a class just beginning high school, for example: “50% have phones that can do video”. I found inspirational, Cowling’s detailing of current use of the portable communications devices which many students at his school already own – encouraging students to use technologies such as iPods and phones as a means for augmentation and celebration of their own literary works. Students are encouraged not only to write poetry, for example, but to fine tune (editing dialogue and refining with additional sound effects and or music) for the purposes of publication (podcasting). Cowling also spoke at the fourth of six symposia, “The Digital Education Revolution Realising the Possibilities, Managing the Realities“ for education.au.

[child dressed as iPod picture by Menlo School]

I believe a big issue for internet users is the portal/s we choose for accessing online knowledge. According to Nate Anderson, Senior Editor of ars technica, there are already moves afoot within Google to derail wikimedia’s burgeoning popularity as a portal. As he wrote in a post a year ago: “Google doesn’t just want to link Wikipedia, it wants to be Wikipedia“. It would seem that arguably altruistic initiatives such as Wikimedia are apt to become the prey of commercial and other entities.

I think that this is an issue for teachers because as children’s guides to ICT, we are also in the position of presenting the glasses through which they will view, and from which they will be fed, their online world. Students’ methods for gaining and deciphering information online will be guided by their teachers. If we teach children to look critically at paper texts, we must also teach them to look critically at online texts.

Just as McDonald’s strives to familiarise children with their product and brand, so too do online entities like Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, etc. which vie for the hearts and minds of young consumers with initiatives such as Yahoo Kids. But is it wise to employ whole-heartedly, the services of an unknown guide? Infamous is Google’s pandering the Chinese government such that the events of the 1989 student protest and subsequent massacre in Tiananmen Square are removed from search results within China – a significant event in history about which young people in China today are apparently predominantly unaware, largely due to the capitulation to government interests of companies such as Google.

["Jenna @ Yahoo!" picture by lantzilla]

["My Eyes" eyeglasses picture by edwardleger] 

["The Tank Man" picture provided by undersound]

“Are some learning skills more difficult than others? Is there a pattern or hierarchy?”

Underscoring this presentation seems to be the idea that students’ learning MUST be quickly demonstrable.

I think that simple concepts are more easily taught by teachers and demonstrated easily by the students – skills like building a papier machet mask. Demonstrating that you understand an escoteric concept or value however, may be a long term issue and indeed the teaching of such concepts/skills may not ‘pay off’ during the teacher/student relationship. The evidence of such learning may never be evidenced to the teacher and might not surface until the student has entered adulthood. Does that nullify the worth of such teaching?

Will the teaching profession become increasingly shallow as it is subjected to political and neoliberalistic imperatives which champion short term results – investments which yield arguably insignificant albeit immediate returns?

Reaction

I sympathise with Kev’s blog post (Because We Can! -Interactive Whiteboards-)  in which he discusses interactive whiteboards being utilised ‘just because they’re there’ and not necessarily because they’re the best option for class engagement in a particular teaching episode. There is also the issue of potential eye strain (about which Kev has also made comment) experienced by children in classrooms where there are extended periods of computer screen use (after all, the SMART Board screen is just an enlarged computer screen). The visual experience of looking at a SMART Board for extended periods of a school day may also be deleterious to students’ health, as the resolution and contrast ratio is much less than that of a traditional whiteboard or blackboard. These safety guidelines detail considerations which may not be immediately apparent.

[smartboard picture by jisc_infonet]

What about the plain old data projector?

On another note, I have been impressed by the usefulness of a simple data projector (without SMART Board capability) in the classroom. At my last prac placement the room was equipped with data projector and computer only, and the teacher put these facilities to great use with with activities such as interactive online learning games (which were played together as a whole class); informative educational videos (such as ABC’s Behind the News); and as a means of presenting text to the class (saving an enormous amount time which would need to be spent writing on the board).

[data projector picture by western4uk]

Power Point success!

In the Special Religious Education (SRE) classroom in which I teach on Wednesdays I have access to a SMART Board. Perhaps due to a lack of effort, skill and imagination on my part, I find myself regularly augmenting lessons with visual aids and interactive presentations simply using MS PowerPoint. I find this works especially well for cloze style whole class activities and for providing visual context for topics (not to mention display of lyrics for songs of praise). Occasionally I find it handy to be able to draw on a slide with the SMART Board pens. The wireless presentation mouse is a real boon for lessons using Power Point as it frees me to move about the classroom as one would during a traditional lesson (remember you can use the click-wheel to move forward and backward in the presentation).

[USB fish mouse picture by endlessstudio]