I came across this video, quite by accident when I followed a link David provided through Diigo to a YouTube video on ‘The Networked Student‘. I had seen the video before so decided to click on this one on a whim and found that it made some interesting points which connected to some comments I have made in previous posts.
In particular I was taken with one particular quote – “Teachers are no longer the main sources of information – we are the filters.”
While I am not 100% sure about the analogue I do agree that our job has become increasingly about ‘how to teach children to handle information.” Show them how validate, synthesis, leverage and communicate information whilst also showing them ways in which they can collaborate and problem solve with that information.
Further the clip challenges teachers to consider whether they “Should be focus on fact and content or skills?” and providing a comprehensive list of what some of these skills might entail, especially in light of the increasing use of technology. Along considering the power of the teacher’s voice in addressing and educating students about responsibility, reliability and integrity when working online.
It addressing the value of challenging students to leverage these tool in their learning to make it both more relevant, challenging and engaging.
Throughout much of this course, I have found myself grabbling with, on the one hand, how to provide my students with the freedom and opportunity to construct their own knowledge, and then on the other hand, ensuring they are equipped with the skills needed to be effective in this process. This video goes a small way to helping me resolve these issues. Perhaps now that I am better understanding the ‘bigger picture’ when it comes to global and networked learning I am beginning to focus more on the ‘how to’ of the process. Given that I work a little further down the scale than many of you, I feel that many of the skills needed to develop great constructivist thinkers and creators needs to start with a little more direct instruction and guided investigation. Not to say though that that process cannot be meaningful, powerful and engaging and hopefully a little fun as well! Would be interested to hear your thoughts!
Yes, I thought we had to find our own review of the book and an additional video that highlight some of the key points being made there in about our construction of knowledge online – lesson learnt! I have decided to share a few quotes from the article and video anyway for no other reason than they are quite interesting.
“The Knowledge Triangle presented first in 1988 by Russel Akkoff presented DIKW (Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom) as the basis for our information ecology. Weinberger says our Information Age was built on this pyramid – creating an elaborate filtering system to sort Wisdom from Data.” (Rosenbaum, 2012)
“Weinberer says what we’re losing is the basic strategy of knowing by reducing – the info triangle no longer has a point at the top – it’s cut off a the middle – an ever expanding midde.” (Rosenbaum, 2012)
“Core to Weinberger’s concern [about the internet] is the idea that the has become not a marketplace of ideas, but of echoes.
He welcomes the serendipity of exploring the world of linked idea, yet is concerned that the web is distracting, too filled with… serendipity.
He celebrates the multitude of voices that are available on the web, yet suggests that we complain that uncredentialed unreliable people get the same megaphones as scholars and trained journalists.” (Rosenbaum, 2012)
Weinberger’s thoughts seem, in part, to be reflected through the early stages of this ‘Head to Head’ video by Meddi Hasan, titled ‘Will the internet set us free?’
The interview was conducted with co-founder of Wikipedia Jimmy Wales and a panel of experts including; Herman Chinery-Hesse, Bob Ayers, Isabella Sankey and Oliver Kamm. The video itself is pretty long, delving into privacy and all manner of tangents but there are some interesting points made about Wikipedia which I have included based on reference to it in the video David provided and its clear link to the point made by Rosenbaum in his review of David Weinberger’s book.
Medhi Hasan: “The question then becomes, can an online encyclopedia … that anyone can edit – can it be a truly accurate, reliable, high-quality source of content?”
Jimmy Wales:“…one of the important things to understand about Wikipedia is that it’s a dialogue. It’s a discussion. It’s a, you know, everything is open to revision. Everything is open to discussion, debate, to challenge.”
Medhi Hasan: “You talk about the community and yet how can a teenager sitting in his bedroom be accorded the same weight and credibility and authority as a tenured professor on a subject that may be the specialist subject, the lifetime research of that professor?”
Medhi Hasan: “The guy who created Wikipedia with you, Larry Sanger, he says Wikipedia lacks credibility because of, quote, “anti-elitism or lack of respect for expertise”. Now, that’s undeniable, isn’t it?”
Jimmy Wales: “We are not anti-elitist. We’re anti-credentialist. We are very elitist in the sense that we want people who know what they’re talking about.”
Oliver Kamm: “My objection to Wikipedia, Mehdi used the phrase anti-elitist, you responded by saying it’s anti-credentialist. My objection to Wikipedia is that it’s anti-intellectual. I’ve never come across an academic enthused by the subject who’s unwilling to discuss it or to debate the subject matter. The problem with Wikipedia is that you’re democratic, not in the sense of no one has the last word by credentials, but, anyone can join in. There is no way in which Wikipedia can filter genuine scholarship from amateur enthusiasm.”
Jimmy Wales: “Your view of Wikipedia is just simply false. This idea that we would regard everybody’s opinion as equally valid – this is not true. The open model is absolutely subject to some difficulties and weaknesses. But such as democracy. You know, this view that somehow Wikipedia is anti-intellectual is false. I mean we’re absolutely in the tradition, the enlightenment tradition, of reason, debate and discussion, and openness to new ideas.”
References
Al Jazeera (2014, April 4). Head to Head – Will the internet set us free? [Video file]. Video posted to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trSaVLbfspg
Rosenbaum, S. (2012) The Web: Too Big Too Know?. Retrieved September 1, 2014.
Having challenged the idea of what knowledge and skills might be considered essential in today’s world, our attention turns to how this knowledge and these skills are transfer and acquire. I speak of course of the physical environment in which teaching and learning takes place and the manner in which it is convey, the pedagogy.
THE ENVIRONMENT
“[T]raditional education is defined by two elements of organization: bounded classrooms and hierarchical organization of information and content.” (Siemens, 2008)
There as been much written and said about the origins of our school structures. We can examine the historical aspects of this, but truthfully, I am far more interesting in considering whether or not these environment continue to effectively serve the needs of our students.
“[T]he forces of technological change, new opportunities to create and share information, and increased ability for interact with peers globally require a new model based on networks and ecologies.” (Siemens, 2008)
If the knowledge and skills required by our students has changed, then why not too the environments in which they learn? If we hope to develop in our students the skills of collaboration and communication, both face-to-face and digitally, should we not endeavour to provide physical spaces which support and encourage the development of such skills and knowledge?
“The slow pace at which educational institutions have reacted to technological developments through the creation of new pedagogies can be traced to the physical structures of existing classrooms.” (Siemens, 2008)
As Siemens attest, quoting the work of Oblinger (2006, as cited in Siemens, 2008). there the link between the design of the learning space and improved learning outcomes:
Space—whether physical or virtual—can have an impact on learning. It can bring people together; it can encourage exploration, collaboration, and discussion. Or, space can carry an unspoken message of silence and disconnectedness. More and more we see the power of built pedagogy (the ability of space to define how one teaches) in colleges and universities. (Oblinger, 2006 as cited in Siemens, 2008)
Though not included directly within this quotation, I believe its relevance can be extend to include traditional K-12 school settings. How can we expect students to think, learn and work in new ways, in environments that physical, despite the best efforts of many teachers to manipulate them to suit their needs, promote a traditional view of teaching and learning that is essentially – I teach, you learn!
As a teacher who has been around the block a couple of times, I know first hand the direct effect the learning environment can have on my students. I can inspire open discussion and collaboration or create compliance simply by moving my students’ desks and chairs. Imagine what could be achieved if we dared to threw away the old school model, and look to build something new…what if the walls didn’t matter?
As leading architect, Prakash Nair mentions in this video, perhaps school leaders can use their physical environments as catalyst for the change wish to see in teaching and learning. Such “dialogue about changing learning spaces and structures suggests a fundamental rethinking of classrooms, courses, and programs” (Siemens, 2008) and that process, though challenging, is essential if our schools are going to move into the 21st century. Surely the time has come for us to stop and think serious and purposefully about the future needs of education. What do we want for our children? What do our children need from our schools? A valid consideration I think before we continue to investing millions of dollars in buildings that do nothing but replicate the past, thereby confining teaching and learning to the past as well.
If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.” (Henry Ford)
You will note that I have not discussed the role of technology as it related to the school environment. Why? Well, I think few would argue that technology is here to stay, and as such, considerations for wireless networks etc is generally now a given when it comes to physical infrastructure and planning. There is also the additional consideration that technology is change at such a rapid pace, that specific planning for technology today, will be out-of-date tomorrow. Therefore I believe time is better spend considering how the design of the physical spaces in schools reflects each school’s vision for teaching and learning. These can’t just be words in a glossy brochure or on a flashy website, they must be lived, reflected in the buildings as well as in the people. Designing spaces that can be flexible and bend to the teaching and learning needs whatever they might be, now and in the future, seems like a worthwhile time investment. After all…
We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us. (Winston Churchill)
Learning spaces are a subject dear to my heart. I would love to share some of the work that I have explored in this area, but am conscious of copyright laws. Instead I have included some links to some images that might just get you thinking about learning spaces as well and the incredible possibilities they create for learning,..look out for the concertina whiteboard walls – they are my favourite!
“Traditional classrooms provide a particular shape to the learner–educator relationship.” (Siemens, 2008)
The pedagogical implications for a shift in our understanding of what knowledge and skills our students need to be protective members of society are enormous, and perhaps will be the most difficult to overcome. Teachers can be notoriously skeptical when it comes to change but if we are “[t]o truly harness the transformative potential of new technologies, change at a systemic level is required” (Siemens, 2008). The first step toward that change might just be admitting that we don’t know what the future holds for schools and education in general. While that can be scary, it has the potential to be quite liberating. Think of the possibilities! A clean slate, a blank cheque – what would teaching and learning look like to you?
One possible approach, as suggested by Siemens in this article, is participatory pedagogy.
“A participatory pedagogy is one that does not fully define all curricular needs in advance of interacting with learners. Learners are able to contribute to existing curricula. The organizational work of faculty members does not comprise the entirety of the course content and does not consist of the sole perspective used to filter content. Multiple perspectives, opinions, and active creation on the part of learners all contribute to the final content of the learner experience.” (Askins, 2008; Collis & Moonen, 2008 as cited in Siemens, 2008)
Now for the average teacher this is quite a significant shift, but what I link about it is that fact that it opens us up to the possibilities of what teaching and learning COULD look like. One thing is for certain though, “[e]merging devices, tools, media, and virtual environments offer opportunities for creating new types of learning communities for students and teachers” (Dede, 2004). The world is at our fingertips, and the same is true for our students! The possibilities are endless – but if we are honest, we must also acknowledge that change and innovation are not always easy to achieve in schools.
“Large systems do not react and change due to small change pressures. Once change has developed to a point of potentially altering the existing system, significant resistance can be expected.” (Siemens 2008)
“The truth is “the fundamental barriers to employing new technologies effectively for learning are not technical or economic, but psychological, organizational, political, and cultural” (Debe, 2004)
But if we do not stand up and ‘fight the good fight’, education will continue to remain dormant and unchanged. As educators do we not then fail in our duty to adequately prepare our student to enter the world equipped with the knowledge and skills they need, not only to be productive, but to thrive? We are no longer the centre of our students’ universe and it is naive of us to continue to maintain such an ideology. Our roles are changing and evolving and where that might lead us, is still unclear. Yet, this is experience for which we are charged with preparing our students. So if we accept that they require different knowledge and skills to step bravely into the unknown, then as teacher, just this once, maybe we should do as we have always done, and lead by example!
“I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.” (Helen Keller)
REFERENCES
Dede, Chris. “Distributed-learning communities as a model for educating teachers.” Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Vol. 2004. No. 1. 2004.
Siemens, G. (2008). New structures and spaces of learning: The systemic impact of connective knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning. Actas Do Encontro Sobre Web.
In considering where to start, I have decided to take Stephen Covey’s advice and endeavour to ‘Begin with the end in mind’! This seems fitting as perhaps the greatest takeaway from the article, for me, is found in its conclusion, all be it in a slightly altered order!
Education is concerned with the act of becoming… learning assists individuals in coming to understand the world, to contemplate worthy and significant ideas and concepts, …learning is the process of coming to understand the world broadly and from many perspectives in order to see one’s role in advancing the needs related to ethics and humanity. (Siemens, 2008)
Education is not an end in itself. Education will continue to develop as the central element in preparing individuals and societies to participate in the information and knowledge age. The critical challenges facing humanity are many. A highly connected and well educated populace appears to hold the greatest prospect for meeting these challenges. (Siemens, 2008)
Regardless of your views about the future of education, I think there are few who would disagree with the sentiments express here. Education has always been charged with the responsibility of preparing student to be productive members of society, that’s nothing new. Where the controversy and debate seems to arise is in what that mean in the 21st century?
To answer this question, we need to get straight to the heart of what it means to teach and learn – the transfer and acquisition of knowledge and skills. I know, this highly simplistic view doesn’t sit well with me either but I am trying to consider the nature of our core business from an outsider’s perspective. With that in mind, any justification for change then would need to address a failure in this definition, right?
So, the way I see it this definition has two components, the WHAT and the HOW. What we teach and learn and how we do it!
THE WHAT…
Knowledge
According to George Siemens and Stephen Downs, “Knowledge—the core product and source of engagement in education—has become increasingly fluid” (Downes, 2006; Siemens, 2006 as cited in Siemens, 2008). A position supported by the work of Gunther Kress and Norbert Pachler (2007 as cited in Siemens, 2008), “[w]hat we have here is a transition from a stable, settled world of knowledge produced by authority/authors, to a world of instability, flux, of knowledge produced by the individual.”
The reason for this change lies primarily in the technological advancements that enable us to access information when we want, how we want, where we want and in whatever form we want! What is more, these same technologies are changing our relationship information. We are no longer just passive consumers, we have the ways and means to produce and share our thoughts and ideas with the world on a scale barely imaginable. Consider, that for the vast majority of the students currently sitting in our schools, this is the world as they have ALWAYS known it!
So, in returning to our definition of the role of schools, if teachers are no longer the keepers of all wisdom, how then can we continue to maintain the view and approach to education that children arrive at school an empty vessel to be filled?
Skills
In trying to ascertain what skills students will need to full fill their role as productive members of society, one might as well consult a crystal ball.
Granted reading, writing and basic mathematical understanding will always have a role to play but the notion of a single career or job for life, as experience by previous generations, appears to be a thing of the past. The nature of the workplace, and indeed work itself, seems to be constantly evolving to meet the change needs of the world around us, again due in not small part to technology. The world has become a much smaller place and the students in our classroom will be competing, not only with the children sitting beside them for jobs, but with their counterparts from all around the world. They are entering a competitive and rapidly changing work environment operating on a global scale. So what skills will serve them best, given that we cannot predict exactly what those work environments might look like next year, let along 20 years from now?
In Siemens (2008) article, he alludes the increasing importance of mindset – “The development of a certain type of person with certain mindsets exceeds the importance of being in possession of a particular type of knowledge—becomingin contrast with knowing.”
Which brings me back to the work of Carol Dweck and her research into how an individual’s mindset can impact on both achievement and success. Though I have made mention of Carol’s work before, I include the following explanation by way of further elaboration.
In a fixed mindset, people believe their basic qualities, like their intelligence or talent, are simply fixed traits. They spend their time documenting their intelligence or talent instead of developing them. They also believe that talent alone creates success—without effort. They’re wrong.
In a growth mindset, people believe that their most basic abilities can be developed through dedication and hard work—brains and talent are just the starting point. This view creates a love of learning and a resilience that is essential for great accomplishment. Virtually all great people have had these qualities. (Dweck, 2010)
It seems to me that in preparing for an largely unknown future, the ability to be optimistic, resilient, hard working and determined provide a pretty solid foundation upon which to adapt, survive and even thrive in such a world.
Granted there will be those that say that students need the 3Rs and to be technological literate and I agree. But if you have belief in your capacity to adapt and learn, and understand that that process requires hard work and commitment, I would also argue that you have the tools to learn, unlearn and relearn the skills required to be productive in any workplace, and surely that increases your employability.
I would also argue the importance of ‘Character Education’ in preparing students to not just be productive member of society but leaders within that society as well. But perhaps that is a discussion best left for another day!
It would seem that my thoughts are running away with me a little (surprise, surprise), so I have decided to break this post into two parts, having covered the WHAT, see Part 2 for the HOW!
references
Dweck, C. (2010). What is Mindset. Retrieved August 31, 2014, from http://mindsetonline.com/whatisit/about/index.html
Siemens, G. (2008). New structures and spaces of learning: The systemic impact of connective knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning. Actas Do Encontro Sobre Web.
“Our assumptions about learning are fundamentally flawed!”
Now that is what I call an introduction! In listening to Chris Dede speak about education in relation to three basic human behaviours; sleeping, eating and bonding, I am struck with how he take such complex issue and make it appear so simple and obvious! Obvious to him perhaps – amazing to me! But then as Albert Einstein has been quoted –
“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”
Dede’s words seems reflect the revelation of Sir Ken Robinson and Sugra Mitra (1-4mins) about the origins of our educational systems and whether these models can continue to remain unchanged in the face of a world that is constantly changing and evolving around them.
“The learning styles, strengths, and preferences for students of all ages are changing as their usage of media alters the processes by which people receive, create, and share knowledge.” (Dede, 2005 as cited in Dede, 2008, p.55)
“many educational designers and scholars seek the single best medium for learning, as if such a universal tool could exist.” (Dede, 2008, p.58)
“We treat learning like sleeping!”
Dede also speaks of the dangers of adopting a ‘one size fits all’ approach to ICT use in schools to improve instruction, citing Learning Management Systems (LMS) as one such example.
This instructional improvement strategy is the equivalent of asking a carpenter to build artifacts with only a screwdriver, or only a hammer – then concluding such tools are not useful because each in isolation has limited utility, as well as many weaknesses when broadly applied. In contrast, from an instrumental perspective, the history of tool making shows that the best strategy is to have simultaneously available a variety of specialized tools, rather than a single device that attempts to accomplish everything. (Dede, 2008, p.58)
“No educational ICT is universally good; and the best way to invest in instructional technologies is an instrumental approach that analyzes the natures of the curriculum, students, and teachers to select the appropriate tools, applications, media, and environments.” (Dede, 2008, p.59)
According to Dede, ICTs are “mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition” (Clark, 1983, 1994 as cited in Dede, 2008, p.55).
Dede also suggests that in order to get the most out of technology, students must engage and interact within it for learning to occur, explaining,
No instructional ICT is a technology comparable to fire, where one only has to stand near it to get a benefit from it. Knowledge does not intrinsically radiate from computers, infusing students with learning as fires infuse their onlookers with heat. (Dede, 2008, p.56)
There appears to be a clear connect between the work of Chris Dede and the kind of approach to learning reflected in both the SAMR and TPACK frameworks as I discussed in my post – ‘Connecting the dots!’ More ideas to explore! More connections to make!
A MENU FOR LEARNING
In exploring Chris Dede’s ‘sleep, eat, bond’ analogue and thinking about its implications for both teaching and learning, I found the image of a McDonald’s restaurant menu stuck firmly in my mind. Though not at the more complex end of Dede’s continuum, I couldn’t help but begin to imagine what education might look like, if we adopted a more individual ‘menu-like’ approach to learning.
People, in particular our young people, are increasingly looking for ways to personalise their world, tailoring it suit their needs. They want it their way and they want it now! The commercial world of business has not only recognised this shift but is adapting and looking for new ways to engage with this new consumer.
Perhaps one of the more notable companies to embrace this idea of personalisation was Coke. Their “Share a Coke” campaign saw Coke release bottles bearing different names. Not only was it a hugely successful campaign for the company, customers got what they wanted – personalisation. But of course not everyone’s name could make the cut so they created a ‘Share virtual happiness. Share a virtual Coke!‘ website, so you too can create and download your own personal connection to the Coke brand!
Dominos have now come on board with their ‘Pizza Mogel‘ campaign. This campaign not only allows you to create your own personalised pizza but can make money for your efforts as well. All you have to do is “share it online with your friends and family and earn a slice of the profit for every one you sell” (“Pizza Mogul”, 2014).
While we were sleeping…the world changed! Seems like the time has come to get out of bed start making up for lost time!
Is it so difficult to imagine that education might be able to offer some kind of individualised experience for our students?
“[T]o progress, the field of instructional design must recognize that learning is a human activity quite diverse in its manifestations from person to person, and even from day to day.” (Dede, 2008, p.59)
Below is a link to an example of how one teacher is endeavouring to try and do just that! Mary Vagenas is using a ‘Learning Menu’ to teach US history to Year 7 students at the Queens School of Inquiry in New York.
While the model suggested in this video isn’t perfect perfect, it is example of the starting point of an idea. Consider the possibilities! What might this model begin to look like if we sort to improve upon its design by incorporating aspects of NGL and other ICT tools. Ideas are beginning to flow!!
But then this is what we have been talking about over the last few weeks isn’t it – the need to provide the opportunities through which ‘bonds’ can be forged in our learning environments and communities through which deeper learning and connections can be made ! In the words of Steven Johnson –
“Chance favours the connected mind!”
So here is to making more connections in the hope of uncovering, developing and fostering even more great ideas!
An brief aside…
When delving a little more into the work of Chris Dede I can across his ‘Dimension of Scale’ Model or what Microsoft have called ‘The Scaling Framework’. Having touched briefly on the challenges of teacher uptake in a recent post and in light of comments made by Brendon in his ‘Harry Potter’ analogue along a similar line, I thought it might be worth sharing.
I also found this link a more simplistic explanation of the framework, without all the bells and whistles, if you are interested.
REFERENCES
Dede, C. (2008). Theoretical perspectives influencing the use of information technology in teaching and learning. International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 43-62). Retrieved from http://www.msuedtechsandbox.com/hybridphd/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/dede_2008.pdf
Pizza Mogel. (2014). Retrieved August 20, 2014, from http://www.dominos.com.au/menu/pizza-mogul
“You can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards.” (Steve Jobs)
SAMR FRAMEWORK
Until Mari mentioned SAMR in her blog a few weeks ago, I must confess to not really having much of and idea what she was talking. Though at the time, I did not want to confess my ignorance, a few weeks on and I am far less worried about admitting that I have not idea what SAMR is…how far I have come!
On watching the videoDavid’s posted and a few Google image searches later, I seem to recall hearing about SAMR but have no idea where, when or from whom (getting old is a terrible thing) . In familiarising myself with what the framework entails, I realise that I have actually been employing these strategies in my work without consciously ever really thinking about it. Isn’t it great when you find validation of your approaches based in theory!
Since starting teaching, I have seen many trends come and go. Someone goes to an inservice and the next thing the entire world is being turned upside-down. Next month, something else comes along and the focus shifts. As time goes on, experience teaches you to think before you act. You become less interested about diligently jumping on the latest band wagon and more interested in evaluating and testing what it can add to the teaching and learning outcomes for your students. As the years creep by, your focus shifts again, and it becomes less about what to add, and more about what to substitute, augment, modify or refine about your teaching practice. The journey of my teaching career in four letters – SAMR!
In considering the SAMR model further, I recalled some articles I had downloaded for another subject on the TPACK framework. I believe the two frameworks may in fact compliment each other quite nicely.
TPACK FRAMEWORK
As I understand it, the TPACK framework consists of three main components :
Content knowledge (CK) the “teachers’ knowledge about the subject matter to be learned or taught.”
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) “is [the]…knowledge of pedagogy that is applicable to teaching specific content.”
Technology Knowledge (TK)
(Koehler, Mishra & Cain 2013)
Koehler, Mishra & Cain (2013) indicate in their article ‘What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)?‘ that creating a definition that encompass technology is difficult due to the rapid rate a which technology evolves. The authors further suggest that their definition of TK is heavily influence by FITness – Fluency of Information Technology as developed by the Committee of Information Technology Literacy of the National Research Council (NRC, 1999 as cited in Koehler, Mishra & Cain 2013).
They argue that FITness goes beyond traditional notions of computer literacy to require that persons understand information technology broadly enough to apply it productively at work and in their everyday lives, to recognize when information technology can assist or impede the achievement of a goal, and to continually adapt to changes in information technology.” (Koehler, Mishra & Cain 2013)
What intrigues me most about the TPACK model is, what I like to call, the OPTIMAL OVERLAP of content, pedagogy and technology and the amazing opportunities this presents to us as both teachers and learners.
Granted my understanding of this framework is novice at best, but it seems to me that this should be the ideal goal for teaching and learning in an age when technology offers us unlimited possibility. It is in this optimal overlap where I can see the transformation possibilities of Modification and Redefinition really come into play. While the enhancement phases of Substitution and Augmentation, are probably more likely to be found in the area of overlap between Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) and Technological Pedagogical Content (TPK). I surmise that Modification also has a place in these two areas; however am unsure if Redefinition is possible without a combination of of all three aspect of the model; content, pedagogy and knowledge.
What I also find promising about this framework is that the technology doesn’t drive the content or the pedagogy. It allows for decisions are made based on best practice in all areas.
Of course the successful implementation of either the TPACK and SAMR framework require a commitment educators to change, develop and refine their teaching practice in new ways.
“Learning what to eliminate and what to keep is, depending upon the ladder you are climbing, is not always easy to decide.” (Bigum &Rowan, 2013)
I think it is important to acknowledge that this process can be quite confronting for people who perhaps do not feel comfortable with their own use of technology. With this in mind I share this image created by Mark Anderson based on the work of Ellen Mandinach and Hugh Cline below. I thought it was worth including, if for no other reason than to remind us that we are all standing on different rungs of ‘the ladder’ when it comes to technology.
When looking for teachers to uptake new and innovative ideas there will be those who will adapt and adopt new knowledge more easily and then there will be those who will take a little longer because they are currently position a little further down ‘the ladder’. For them to truly embrace change, they have to be given “the opportunity to make mistakes and learn from them” (Bigum &Rowan, 2013) so they can build on their competencies and move further up the ladder. Skipping those important steps runs the risk, once the school focus inevitably shifts towards something new, that teachers simply return to their old way of doing things.
Please note: If you like this image, Mark Anderson (AKA the ICTEvangelist) has also created his own explanation of the TPACK framework if you would like to explore the framework a little further. He also has one for SAMR.
REFERENCES
Bigum, C and Rowan, L. (2013). Ladders, Learning and Lessons from Charlie: exploring the potential of public click pedagogy. Working Paper (2). A paper submitted as part of an actor-network theory double symposium organised by Steve Wright for the 9th International Networked Learning Conference 2014.
Koehler, M.J, Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education 193 (3), 13-19. Retrieved from http://www.bu.edu/journalofeducation/files/2014/02/BUJoE.193.3.Koehleretal.pdf
“Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won’t come in.”
― Isaac Asimov
In considering my response to the video David re-flagged for us this week, and revising the reflections regarding the same video already shared by Brendon, I find myself grappling with the lessons from Sivers’ work both for me as a teacher and for my students. Am I might be over-thinking this again!?!
It did, however, get me thinking about assumptions and how my view of the world really is coloured and shaped by those assumptions. Perhaps, as suggested within the narrative of the video, the most concerning of those assumptions are about myself, my capabilities, or lack there of. In this sense, are my assumptions in effect barriers then of my own creation? If I have these assumptions, would not then my student have them too? Perhaps they see the world, as I do, through ‘assumption-coloured’ lens, placing limits on what they believe they are capable of based of their own sets of assumptions about who they are.
Tell me, does an image of such a student suddenly spring to mind for you too? But there is not just one is there! The more you begin to think, the more student you recall. Those cherubs in whom you could and can see such great things, such amazing potential, yet they could not or cannot see it for themselves. But I am not talking about confidence or self-esteem, though I am sure there is some correlation. I am talking about the limitations we place on ourselves, often from such an early age. Where do these assumptions comes from? Do we learn them, or are they innate to the human condition?
In my what seems to be my never-ending search for answers these days, I came across this video and I thought I would share it. Perhaps because it provided me with some insight into how, as teacher, we many be unintentionally helping to create these limitations in the mindsets of our students but also because perhaps we are also the solution.
As parents, teacher and educators of all denominations and manifestations, I think there is much we can take away from both the words of Derek Siver and James Nottingham. Perhaps we need to focus less on being the best, and more on the progress. Focus less on the result and more on what happens next! In the words of Nottingham –
“Progress is so much closer to learning than who’s got the top score!”
Towards the end of his TED presentation, James Nottingham makes brief reference to the work of Carol Dweck. Carol Dweck is the author of Mindset and is a lecturer in the Psychology Department at Stanford University. I was introduced to the work of Carol Dweck through a MOOC course I did earlier this year in ‘Teaching Character and Creating Positive Classrooms‘. And perhaps her work in developing ‘growth and fixed mindset’ in our children provides yet another tool through which we as teachers might better look to better equip our students for the future and seek to challenge their assumptions about themselves and the world around them.
The basic premise of this work is that a fixed mindset approaches learning with the belief that it should come naturally. A growth mindset on the other hand sees equates learning to effort and working hard is key.
The distinguishing feature of geniuses is their passion and dedication to their craft, and particularly, the way in which they identify, confront, and take pains to remedy their weaknesses (Good, Rattan, & Dweck, 2008 as cited in Developing Growth Mindset, n.d.).
Dweck also cautions that we should, therefore, be careful in how we praise students. Rewarding the effort, rather than focusing on the the achievement – which echos the words of James Nottingham. Granted this is a highly simplistic account of Dweck’s work, but I have included a link to a PDF document which explains a little more about fixed and growth mindset, if you are interested.
So once again, I have found myself strolled up the garden path. Not sure if I have answered David’s question but at the same time making the decision to try and not hold back – striving to live the ‘growth mindset’ dream! Perhaps here in lies the lesson – try to assume nothing about yourself or other, and expect that everything you do is taking you one step further out of your comfort zone which, in effect, is wiping clean that window, so a little light can come in!
REFERENCES
East Stroudsberg University. (n.d.). Developing Growth Mindset. Retrieved, August, 29, 2014, from https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www4.esu.edu/academics/enrichment_learning/documents/pdf/developing_growth_mindset.pdf&sa=U&ei=TjIAVISiHpeTuAT-p4KYCQ&ved=0CAUQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNGPDJHxvEIddL7y7C7BkTh5uxC-TA
I sat down tonight determined to catch up a little on my TED video viewing and I came across this TED talk by Sam Berns. In it Sam gives his advice for a happy life. Sam gave this speech at the end of October 2013. He passed away on the 10 January 2014. He was 17. I thought I’d share it –
Because sometimes you just need to be reminded
that you can change the world!
All you’ve got to do is focus on what you CAN do, surround yourself with “people of high quality” and keep moving forward!
Sound like a philosophy not only for life but also NGL!
I have long known that on the Myers-Briggs Personality Test that I am an INFJ!
Just to be sure and in the spirit of sound research, which utilising multiple sources I told myself, I had a go at a couple of the other web-based ‘assessments’ that Brendon provided in his blog post. Yet my results seem to always the same!
It was interesting to note the break down of the results that was given by the first web link which also highlighted ‘distinct and slight’ preferences. I was also secretly just pleased to see that Carl Jung received some of the credit he deserves!
Turns out I am DISTINCTLY introverted yet have only ‘slight’ tendencies in all other areas. What complicated beings we are! On reflection, I also think it goes to show that over time your preferences can and do change. If I was to have completed this kind of assessment in my distant youth, I am extremely confident that my results would have been dramatically different. Our life experience, work and relationships all seem to leave their lasting mark, helping to shape our personalities. How incredibly significant and important then is our work with young people!
A little more to ponder! The complexities of the universe tend to keep me up at night these days…like, for example, what do I have in common with Adolf Hitler! Turns out, aside from our German heritage, far more than I would like to admit – but in the words of Goodyear (2014),
“Trust can be infectious within networks”
And we are all trusted members of a global networked community aren’t we? So Let the sharing begin –
Hitler was born on the 20th April -the estimated date for my arrival in the world.
Hitler died on the 30th of April – my actual birth date.
And, so it seems, we are both an INFJ on the Myers Briggs Personality Test!
All a bit of a concern really!
REFERENCE
Goodyear, P. (2014), Productive Learning Networks. The Evolution of Research and Practice. In Carvalho, L. & Goodyear, P. (Eds.), The Architecture of Productive Learning Networks. (pp. 23-47). New York: Routledge.
IMAGE CREDIT
Image by: Lies Thru a Lens (original image cropped and recolour in accordance with copyright allowances)
Boldly going where I haven't gone before. Working with others to try to break the internet with Networked and Global learning....one blog post at a time...
Infographic created by Connected Learning Infographic
EVEN ELMO'S GOT A MOBILE 