Well we are coming to the end of this blogging assignment and I have found it to be a very valuable web 2.0 foot print experiment. I have found it interesting the public nature of the publishing to have had a greater impact on my writing than I anticipated. The engagement from other students in commenting on my posts has been more motivating than I thought and has challenged me to write with more purpose and clarity.
For those who have not tried the public blogging experience using blogger I would suggest that it worth the effort as I believe it to be completely different in its outcomes from choosing a private blog.
The interactive commenting on others blogs as well as posting and relpying on my own has created a community of shared learning and I think that public blogs should be compulsory for this paper in the future.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
My thoughts re: Study Guide 6: Vision and Policy for e-Learning- Part A – Integration of e-learning and Study Guide 6: Vision and Policy for e-Learni
I am lucky enough to be sitting in christchurch having just finished the ULearn09 elearning conference. This event is held every year and is open to anyone! I would strongly suggest elearning educators to attend.All of the themes identified identified in the latest study guides have been addressed at this conference and I will now share my musings.
The study guide discusses the work of Fullan (1985). who according to the study guide for the edprosoft paper 714 (2009) “identified three major dimensions of change and argued that implementation must occur in all three for desired outcomes to be achieved: Teaching materials,Teaching strategies, Teaching beliefs”
My 2nd assignment is about a 1:1 program and I have been to 4 breakout sessions on the progress, pedagogy, pitfalls and practical steps for such schemes. All 4 speakers touched on aspects of those 3 issues. Obviously the teaching materials = the laptops themselves and the creation of new digital resources to teach in a new way - NOT a digital version of the old resources though! Which brings me to the teaching strategies. From the experiences and research that has been shared with me it would seem that a 1:1 program is doomed to certain failure if it merely becomes a digital version of the old style. A powerpoint slide telling you to read pages 1-4 and answer questions 1-8 is not any better from the 1940’s rote learning model. Thus teachers need to adopt a constructivist and differentiated learning approach in order to fully embrace a 1:1 program. The importance of exposing and confronting existing teaching beliefs and considerable work on constructing 21st century teaching beliefs and strategies cannot be overlooked. Teachers must want to embrace a 1:1 program or they can be a hand-break for the students. The selection of staff and PD / support provided is critical to the successful implementation of a 1:1 program
A key difference that I perceived at this years Ulearn was the forwards with careful planning and pedagogy approach. In the past I may not have been looking for this and was more aware of the digital kids = digital teaching sense of urgency. I am sure that both aspects are still there in equal amounts but my ears have changed as a result of this paper.
The study guide discusses the term integration and what this means in schools.
edprosoft paper 714 (2009) “Curricular integration-” and wether or not skills are to be taught in isolation. I have just been to a workshop where an online skills progression program was advocated. I still firmly believe that this begs the question where is the course for pencil cases! This gives a purpose to the notion of an ICT suite which I believe was well described by Gary Sager (Ulearn09) as a “petting zoo for ict”
The next approach to integration is labeled “Temporal integration” From the workshops I have just been with 1:1 programs support a just in time approach and although the amount of machines may suggest to an teacher that a just in case skill could be taught, the experiences of those presenting at this conference supported my feelings that this NEVER works.
The 3rd approach of Spatial integration is an issue in a 1:1 program in as much of where are the supporting ICT kept? Cameras, easispeaks headphones, usb’s all support the learning process of a 1:1 program and consideration must be made to the addition pressure on these resources a 1:1 class will place on a school system. Included in this will be questions of backups storage charging points. I would add that from the speakers notes the physical spaces for a 1:1 learning environment are different, furniture, walls, size of rooms all of these things need consideration as a school investigates 1:1.
My last breakout coincided with the last term for integration, as discussed in the study guide, “Pedagogical integration” The whole thrust from the speaker was shared clear vision, backed by well understood pedagogy. Unless everyone understands the purpose and pedagogy behind a 1:1 program it will not achieve what it is capable of. Constructivist learning is an important part of the pedagogy behind 1:1 programs and this must be clearly articulated and enacted by teachers so that a 1:1 initiative does not merely support a power pointlessness old school approach.
The study guide discusses the work of Fullan (1985). who according to the study guide for the edprosoft paper 714 (2009) “identified three major dimensions of change and argued that implementation must occur in all three for desired outcomes to be achieved: Teaching materials,Teaching strategies, Teaching beliefs”
My 2nd assignment is about a 1:1 program and I have been to 4 breakout sessions on the progress, pedagogy, pitfalls and practical steps for such schemes. All 4 speakers touched on aspects of those 3 issues. Obviously the teaching materials = the laptops themselves and the creation of new digital resources to teach in a new way - NOT a digital version of the old resources though! Which brings me to the teaching strategies. From the experiences and research that has been shared with me it would seem that a 1:1 program is doomed to certain failure if it merely becomes a digital version of the old style. A powerpoint slide telling you to read pages 1-4 and answer questions 1-8 is not any better from the 1940’s rote learning model. Thus teachers need to adopt a constructivist and differentiated learning approach in order to fully embrace a 1:1 program. The importance of exposing and confronting existing teaching beliefs and considerable work on constructing 21st century teaching beliefs and strategies cannot be overlooked. Teachers must want to embrace a 1:1 program or they can be a hand-break for the students. The selection of staff and PD / support provided is critical to the successful implementation of a 1:1 program
A key difference that I perceived at this years Ulearn was the forwards with careful planning and pedagogy approach. In the past I may not have been looking for this and was more aware of the digital kids = digital teaching sense of urgency. I am sure that both aspects are still there in equal amounts but my ears have changed as a result of this paper.
The study guide discusses the term integration and what this means in schools.
edprosoft paper 714 (2009) “Curricular integration-” and wether or not skills are to be taught in isolation. I have just been to a workshop where an online skills progression program was advocated. I still firmly believe that this begs the question where is the course for pencil cases! This gives a purpose to the notion of an ICT suite which I believe was well described by Gary Sager (Ulearn09) as a “petting zoo for ict”
The next approach to integration is labeled “Temporal integration” From the workshops I have just been with 1:1 programs support a just in time approach and although the amount of machines may suggest to an teacher that a just in case skill could be taught, the experiences of those presenting at this conference supported my feelings that this NEVER works.
The 3rd approach of Spatial integration is an issue in a 1:1 program in as much of where are the supporting ICT kept? Cameras, easispeaks headphones, usb’s all support the learning process of a 1:1 program and consideration must be made to the addition pressure on these resources a 1:1 class will place on a school system. Included in this will be questions of backups storage charging points. I would add that from the speakers notes the physical spaces for a 1:1 learning environment are different, furniture, walls, size of rooms all of these things need consideration as a school investigates 1:1.
My last breakout coincided with the last term for integration, as discussed in the study guide, “Pedagogical integration” The whole thrust from the speaker was shared clear vision, backed by well understood pedagogy. Unless everyone understands the purpose and pedagogy behind a 1:1 program it will not achieve what it is capable of. Constructivist learning is an important part of the pedagogy behind 1:1 programs and this must be clearly articulated and enacted by teachers so that a 1:1 initiative does not merely support a power pointlessness old school approach.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
My take on the Dias (1999) reading that everyone is commenting on .....
After reading a number of other students blogs I have take the time to read the reading : Dias, L. B. (1999)
As per my earlier comments about the relevance of these readings towards my current professional life, this reading touches on aspects of the challenges I am currently encountering with regards curriculum integration.
Dias, L. B. (1999) suggests that saying the computer is a tool is not a good approach. I inaptly took offense at that as that is precisely the phrase I have used time and time again over the last 2 years. Fortunately this is explained because it “enables curriculum developers to continue implementing traditional, subject-based, teacher-directed instructional plans where “ the computer environment remains peripheral, an add-on’ in space and time” (Dias, L. B. 1999. p11.)
This neatly explained why with some staff I am struggling to shift them past the elearning event or topic based product production modus operand.
The ideal is stated as “Instead, technology is integrated when it is used in a seamless manner to support and extend curriculum objectives and to engage students in meaningful learning.” (Dias, L. B. 1999. p11.)
I believe that this is an ideal statement and goal.
I was pleased to note the barriers towards this were discussed and have found that the access to resources as being a easily identifiable and extremely important barrier. All of my schools have made significant progress towards true integration as they have broken down large COWs or ICT suites and raised the amount of permanent desktops per room. We have also broken cows down into calfs as 5 laptops in a movable unit create the situation for true integration into the teachers program rather than the all doing the same thing approach which was happening when the COW was timetabled for the room. This is weighted though by the teachers phase of adoption (Dias,1999) and I believe that to place to higher change expectation on a teacher to soon will have a negative impact of reinforcing the too hard stereo type.
I have found that leaders do have a grasp of the impact of change as a barrier but merely as a reference to the expected resistance. (Dias,1999) I think that the true level of effort that becoming a eteacher for elearners should be better planned for. the expected time scale and rate of change expectation has to be carefully managed. The ministry ICTPD contracts reflect this by being 3 yrs. I believe that this should be a minimum with the option of an extension to 5 yrs. Our contract will be entering the 3rd and final year next year, one of our main goals will be strategically planning for the PD to continue post the cluster finishing. I am aware of a few schools that have continued to fund a facilitator well beyond the contract finishing.
Dias (1999) states that change will happen under the following conditions, Relative Advantage, Observiblity, Compatibility, Complexity, Trainability. I would suggest that although the above are all important factors especially in my observation the relative advantage, I believe that another main reason for change has been external pressure, e.g. elearning valued, expected and given prominence and importance by the school leadership has made a large impact on the positive external pressure for change. All the staff throughout the cluster must have elearning goals embedded into their appraisal.
Dias (1999) has ideas on the style and type of classroom in which elearning integration can occur, Active, Constructive, Collaborative, Intentional, Conversational, Contextulized, and Reflective. These are perhaps the basis for elearning observations during elearning appraisal observations rather than the current model we have been using. I will discuss this with my lead teachers during my next team meeting.
Dias, L. B. (1999). Integrating technology: Some things you should know. Learning and Leading with Technology, 27(3), 11-13, 21.
As per my earlier comments about the relevance of these readings towards my current professional life, this reading touches on aspects of the challenges I am currently encountering with regards curriculum integration.
Dias, L. B. (1999) suggests that saying the computer is a tool is not a good approach. I inaptly took offense at that as that is precisely the phrase I have used time and time again over the last 2 years. Fortunately this is explained because it “enables curriculum developers to continue implementing traditional, subject-based, teacher-directed instructional plans where “ the computer environment remains peripheral, an add-on’ in space and time” (Dias, L. B. 1999. p11.)
This neatly explained why with some staff I am struggling to shift them past the elearning event or topic based product production modus operand.
The ideal is stated as “Instead, technology is integrated when it is used in a seamless manner to support and extend curriculum objectives and to engage students in meaningful learning.” (Dias, L. B. 1999. p11.)
I believe that this is an ideal statement and goal.
I was pleased to note the barriers towards this were discussed and have found that the access to resources as being a easily identifiable and extremely important barrier. All of my schools have made significant progress towards true integration as they have broken down large COWs or ICT suites and raised the amount of permanent desktops per room. We have also broken cows down into calfs as 5 laptops in a movable unit create the situation for true integration into the teachers program rather than the all doing the same thing approach which was happening when the COW was timetabled for the room. This is weighted though by the teachers phase of adoption (Dias,1999) and I believe that to place to higher change expectation on a teacher to soon will have a negative impact of reinforcing the too hard stereo type.
I have found that leaders do have a grasp of the impact of change as a barrier but merely as a reference to the expected resistance. (Dias,1999) I think that the true level of effort that becoming a eteacher for elearners should be better planned for. the expected time scale and rate of change expectation has to be carefully managed. The ministry ICTPD contracts reflect this by being 3 yrs. I believe that this should be a minimum with the option of an extension to 5 yrs. Our contract will be entering the 3rd and final year next year, one of our main goals will be strategically planning for the PD to continue post the cluster finishing. I am aware of a few schools that have continued to fund a facilitator well beyond the contract finishing.
Dias (1999) states that change will happen under the following conditions, Relative Advantage, Observiblity, Compatibility, Complexity, Trainability. I would suggest that although the above are all important factors especially in my observation the relative advantage, I believe that another main reason for change has been external pressure, e.g. elearning valued, expected and given prominence and importance by the school leadership has made a large impact on the positive external pressure for change. All the staff throughout the cluster must have elearning goals embedded into their appraisal.
Dias (1999) has ideas on the style and type of classroom in which elearning integration can occur, Active, Constructive, Collaborative, Intentional, Conversational, Contextulized, and Reflective. These are perhaps the basis for elearning observations during elearning appraisal observations rather than the current model we have been using. I will discuss this with my lead teachers during my next team meeting.
Dias, L. B. (1999). Integrating technology: Some things you should know. Learning and Leading with Technology, 27(3), 11-13, 21.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Explaining teachers brains
Well the theme of this blog is appearing to be “how do the PD readings I am encountering whilst undertaking an epedogy paper at Auckland uni fit with my current work?”
So with that in mind I have been intently reading the work of Harris, J. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. (2009). This has formalized my notions of how teachers think and learn.
As an ict facilitator I spent some of my time last year engaged in “Demonstrations of sample resources, lessons and projects.” because, “teachers often demand classroom-based and student-tested examples of appropriate technology use. (Harris, J. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. 2009, p394.)
I was becoming concerned however about the effectiveness of this, as all I felt it was proving was that I was an effective teacher, capable of integrating elearning at a range of levels.
The focus has been far more pedagogical and supported peer teaching of elearning integration trials. I have found that an approach that has positive change, has been when I have assisted in planning a lesson / unit with the teacher. they are the professional who knows the class. This is important rather than just retro fitting an of the shelf lesson. I have been in the room to assist, if needed, as this strategy is trailed.
This reading has made sense of the approach that I fluked in response to staff questions. I was asked to create a table similar to that used in this article were direct suggestions and correlation's are listed between lesson content / learning pedagogy / the possible elearning idea. This type of ideas chart has proved a huge hit with staff, but I wasn't sure why? It all seemed so obvious to me.
Harris, et-al (2009) describe this as TPACK, “TPACK is a form of professional knowledge that technologically and pedagogically adept, curriculum-oriented teachers use when they teach.” (p401) Harris, et-al (2009) further explain this, “TPACK emphasizes the connections among technologies, curriculum content, and specific pedagogical approaches, demonstrating how teachers’ understandings of technology, pedagogy, and content can interact with one another to produce effective discipline-based teaching with educational technologies.” (p396)
I consider this to be a critical reading for anyone involved in providing pd to staff. the explanation of the 3 main areas of knowledge and the impact of the areas of overlap for teaching and learning are simple clear and will give insight into the mysterious world of what is happening in an effective teachers brain at any given moment during a lesson.
Harris, J. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 9-4.9-4.
So with that in mind I have been intently reading the work of Harris, J. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. (2009). This has formalized my notions of how teachers think and learn.
As an ict facilitator I spent some of my time last year engaged in “Demonstrations of sample resources, lessons and projects.” because, “teachers often demand classroom-based and student-tested examples of appropriate technology use. (Harris, J. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. 2009, p394.)
I was becoming concerned however about the effectiveness of this, as all I felt it was proving was that I was an effective teacher, capable of integrating elearning at a range of levels.
The focus has been far more pedagogical and supported peer teaching of elearning integration trials. I have found that an approach that has positive change, has been when I have assisted in planning a lesson / unit with the teacher. they are the professional who knows the class. This is important rather than just retro fitting an of the shelf lesson. I have been in the room to assist, if needed, as this strategy is trailed.
This reading has made sense of the approach that I fluked in response to staff questions. I was asked to create a table similar to that used in this article were direct suggestions and correlation's are listed between lesson content / learning pedagogy / the possible elearning idea. This type of ideas chart has proved a huge hit with staff, but I wasn't sure why? It all seemed so obvious to me.
Harris, et-al (2009) describe this as TPACK, “TPACK is a form of professional knowledge that technologically and pedagogically adept, curriculum-oriented teachers use when they teach.” (p401) Harris, et-al (2009) further explain this, “TPACK emphasizes the connections among technologies, curriculum content, and specific pedagogical approaches, demonstrating how teachers’ understandings of technology, pedagogy, and content can interact with one another to produce effective discipline-based teaching with educational technologies.” (p396)
I consider this to be a critical reading for anyone involved in providing pd to staff. the explanation of the 3 main areas of knowledge and the impact of the areas of overlap for teaching and learning are simple clear and will give insight into the mysterious world of what is happening in an effective teachers brain at any given moment during a lesson.
Harris, J. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 9-4.9-4.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
New Literacy Concepts, My thoughts...
With an uncanny accuacy the latest set of readings have again matched what is happening in my world. On Mondays I teach an extension media goup. The group is called LCM or Literacy Creativity and Media. The work is being overseen by Marilyn Small who is an efellow and is studing the effects on literacy levels when children have an authentic auideince which is provided for us by the fact that our work goes onto Pukecho Echo ( A regional kids TV show ). For weeks I have avoided having converstions with Marilyn with regard to my thoughts of the literacy component of the work I do with the children. Now having completed the latest set of readings I can barely stop discussing the impacts as I percieve them to be.
Unsworth, L. (2001). “In order to become effective participants in emerging multiliteracies, students need to understand how the resources of language, image and digital rhetoric's can be deployed independently and interactively to construct different kinds of meanings.” (p.8) This then gives gives me the permission to validate my suspicions that as we create and collaborate on projects such as our sinking of the titanic add for the fair-go awards we are indeed making headway with the new forms of literacy not merely the old school beliefs of pure reading and writing. This need to validate new literacy learning for both the student and the teacher is reflected by Unsworth, L. (2001). who states that “Teachers are looking for a coherent and practical framework for classroom work, which consolidates fundamental aspects of traditional literacy pedagogy and also encompasses the multiliteracies competencies that children will need to negotiate in the new millennium.” (p.1).
By running this purely multi media program I have found other educators can be skeptical of the teaching and learning and I have until now found it hard to justify what seems like to much fun, be clearly literacy to the children let alone colleagues! This issue is was also highlighted by Lankshear, C & Knobel, M (2007) who state that, “Indeed, the kind of ethos we associate with new literacy's will often – if not typically – run counter to systemic thinking and norms. For this reason, teachers who seek to adapt their practices to take account of new literacy's ‘insider’ perspectives may well find themselves stepping into ‘minefields of local education-system politics’ (Jill McClay, personal communication). They may do this consciously or unconsciously, strategically or not strategically, in smart or not so smart ways, and successfully or unsuccessfully.” (p230).
Kahn, R. & Kellner, D. (2005) has given me the knowledge and quotes to use an example to use is, “A media-literate person, then, is skillful in analyzing media codes and conventions, able to criticize stereotypes, values and ideologies, and competent to interpret the multiple meanings and messages generated by media texts. Thus, media literacy helps people to use media intelligently, to discriminate and evaluate media content, to critically dissect media forms and to investigate media effects and uses” (see Kellner, 1995). p244
On another note I will be contemplating-the purpose of wikis and blogs as my topic for assignment 1. This was illuminated to me recently when observing a year 1 class news telling prelude to a lesson. The tiny 6 year old girl was using the class blog world feed map to show where her mums friend lived. (In England) The reason was to embellish the chocolate cake baking tale because as mum didn't have a good enough recipe she went onto her friends blog, and got a better recipe. The cake was great and she had a piece for play-lunch. Such occurrences are common now as is supported by Unsworth, L. (2001). who states that, “many instances can be cited from the professional literature and from everyday experience of children intensely involved in multimodal textual practices outside their school experience, which are rarely reflected or acknowledged as part of school literacy's.” This is the view was supported by Brown, J. S. (2000) who gave an example of photocopy technicians and collective intelligence rather than assistance from a technical manuel. The use of the web for common growth was discussed by Lankshear, C & Knobel, M (2007) who found that, “It is, then, an encyclopedia created by participation rather than via publishing; it ‘embraces the power of the web to harness collective intelligence’”(O’Reilly, 2005, n.p.) (p227).
I strongly believe that blogs and wikis have a place in every classroom and am excited to research further.
Brown, J. S. (2000) GROWING UP DIGITIAL: How the Web Changes Work, Education, and the Ways People Learn. Change March/April 2000. 12-20.
Kahn, R. & Kellner, D. (2005) Reconstructing Technoliteracy: a multiple literacies approach. E–Learning. 2.(3) 238-251.
Lankshear, C & Knobel, M (2007) Researching New Literacies: Web 2.0 practices and insider perspectives. E–Learning. 4.(3).224-240. www.wwwords.co.uk/ELEA
Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum, Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. pp1-20. Open University Press Buckingham. Philadelphia.
Unsworth, L. (2001). “In order to become effective participants in emerging multiliteracies, students need to understand how the resources of language, image and digital rhetoric's can be deployed independently and interactively to construct different kinds of meanings.” (p.8) This then gives gives me the permission to validate my suspicions that as we create and collaborate on projects such as our sinking of the titanic add for the fair-go awards we are indeed making headway with the new forms of literacy not merely the old school beliefs of pure reading and writing. This need to validate new literacy learning for both the student and the teacher is reflected by Unsworth, L. (2001). who states that “Teachers are looking for a coherent and practical framework for classroom work, which consolidates fundamental aspects of traditional literacy pedagogy and also encompasses the multiliteracies competencies that children will need to negotiate in the new millennium.” (p.1).
By running this purely multi media program I have found other educators can be skeptical of the teaching and learning and I have until now found it hard to justify what seems like to much fun, be clearly literacy to the children let alone colleagues! This issue is was also highlighted by Lankshear, C & Knobel, M (2007) who state that, “Indeed, the kind of ethos we associate with new literacy's will often – if not typically – run counter to systemic thinking and norms. For this reason, teachers who seek to adapt their practices to take account of new literacy's ‘insider’ perspectives may well find themselves stepping into ‘minefields of local education-system politics’ (Jill McClay, personal communication). They may do this consciously or unconsciously, strategically or not strategically, in smart or not so smart ways, and successfully or unsuccessfully.” (p230).
Kahn, R. & Kellner, D. (2005) has given me the knowledge and quotes to use an example to use is, “A media-literate person, then, is skillful in analyzing media codes and conventions, able to criticize stereotypes, values and ideologies, and competent to interpret the multiple meanings and messages generated by media texts. Thus, media literacy helps people to use media intelligently, to discriminate and evaluate media content, to critically dissect media forms and to investigate media effects and uses” (see Kellner, 1995). p244
On another note I will be contemplating-the purpose of wikis and blogs as my topic for assignment 1. This was illuminated to me recently when observing a year 1 class news telling prelude to a lesson. The tiny 6 year old girl was using the class blog world feed map to show where her mums friend lived. (In England) The reason was to embellish the chocolate cake baking tale because as mum didn't have a good enough recipe she went onto her friends blog, and got a better recipe. The cake was great and she had a piece for play-lunch. Such occurrences are common now as is supported by Unsworth, L. (2001). who states that, “many instances can be cited from the professional literature and from everyday experience of children intensely involved in multimodal textual practices outside their school experience, which are rarely reflected or acknowledged as part of school literacy's.” This is the view was supported by Brown, J. S. (2000) who gave an example of photocopy technicians and collective intelligence rather than assistance from a technical manuel. The use of the web for common growth was discussed by Lankshear, C & Knobel, M (2007) who found that, “It is, then, an encyclopedia created by participation rather than via publishing; it ‘embraces the power of the web to harness collective intelligence’”(O’Reilly, 2005, n.p.) (p227).
I strongly believe that blogs and wikis have a place in every classroom and am excited to research further.
Brown, J. S. (2000) GROWING UP DIGITIAL: How the Web Changes Work, Education, and the Ways People Learn. Change March/April 2000. 12-20.
Kahn, R. & Kellner, D. (2005) Reconstructing Technoliteracy: a multiple literacies approach. E–Learning. 2.(3) 238-251.
Lankshear, C & Knobel, M (2007) Researching New Literacies: Web 2.0 practices and insider perspectives. E–Learning. 4.(3).224-240. www.wwwords.co.uk/ELEA
Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum, Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. pp1-20. Open University Press Buckingham. Philadelphia.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Digital Horizons - A strategy for schools, 2002-2004 Revised edition, December 2003, Ministry of Education Wellington NZ
My musings about the latest selections of readings I have undertaken ....
I have coincidentally been leading cluster schools through the processes of creating elearning vision and planning. I was surprised to read the vision statement on page 3 "All learners will use ICT confidently and creatively to help develop the skills and knowledge they need to achieve
personal goals and to be full participants in the global community." The surprise came because this almost exactly mirrors the statement made by principals and teachers when creating their own school elearning vision. I would believe that most staff would not have read the Digital Horizons prior to working with me so am interested in the similarities. Does this mean that Digital Horizons is still current and valid for 2009 .. I think so.
Most of the goals and actions expressed in this document are still current goals and actions for the schools in my cluster and I was surprised at the level of criticism this document had received in other readings.
Selwyn, D. (2008). Business as usual? Exploring the continuing (in)significance of e-learning policy drive. Computers in New Zealand Schools, 20(3), 22-34.
This reading seems to be particularly fixated on economic pressures and drivers that surround elearning policy in nz. (page5) This reading becomes interesting when discussion surrounds issues in the context of "reading with" Digital Horizons. Selwyn, D. (2008), highlights the disconnect between lofty intangible goals and the financial implications of providing the tools to utilise elearning. Working with 6 different schools in the area of elearning the common thread is consistent inability to provide the laptops / desktops / site licences / data projectors etc that are all needed to teach and learn in a digitally enhanced manner.
The article is quite right to suggest that any improvement is dependent on teacher and school emphasis rather than any thing produced by the ministry. The willingness to change and try new things has been a feature from the staff I have had the privilege to work with and I thank them for their generosity of spirit. Without this I doubt that there would be any tangible change to classroom practice. Thus I think that the title of the reading is extremely important as it suggests quite rightly that things have the potential not to impact teaching and learning without those at the heart of the matter being committed and involved.
I have coincidentally been leading cluster schools through the processes of creating elearning vision and planning. I was surprised to read the vision statement on page 3 "All learners will use ICT confidently and creatively to help develop the skills and knowledge they need to achieve
personal goals and to be full participants in the global community." The surprise came because this almost exactly mirrors the statement made by principals and teachers when creating their own school elearning vision. I would believe that most staff would not have read the Digital Horizons prior to working with me so am interested in the similarities. Does this mean that Digital Horizons is still current and valid for 2009 .. I think so.
Most of the goals and actions expressed in this document are still current goals and actions for the schools in my cluster and I was surprised at the level of criticism this document had received in other readings.
Selwyn, D. (2008). Business as usual? Exploring the continuing (in)significance of e-learning policy drive. Computers in New Zealand Schools, 20(3), 22-34.
This reading seems to be particularly fixated on economic pressures and drivers that surround elearning policy in nz. (page5) This reading becomes interesting when discussion surrounds issues in the context of "reading with" Digital Horizons. Selwyn, D. (2008), highlights the disconnect between lofty intangible goals and the financial implications of providing the tools to utilise elearning. Working with 6 different schools in the area of elearning the common thread is consistent inability to provide the laptops / desktops / site licences / data projectors etc that are all needed to teach and learn in a digitally enhanced manner.
The article is quite right to suggest that any improvement is dependent on teacher and school emphasis rather than any thing produced by the ministry. The willingness to change and try new things has been a feature from the staff I have had the privilege to work with and I thank them for their generosity of spirit. Without this I doubt that there would be any tangible change to classroom practice. Thus I think that the title of the reading is extremely important as it suggests quite rightly that things have the potential not to impact teaching and learning without those at the heart of the matter being committed and involved.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Reaching the tipping point !!
I have just been forwarded this blog and find the comments made to be right on track!!" it seemed impossible to reach the “tipping point” when the vast majority of teachers used computers in constructive ways. " http://stager.tv/blog/?p=547. The struggle of have to constantly prove elearning worthiness to some educators can be wearing. To my delight however persistence pays of, and these reluctants' can give the biggest rewards when they come to you to share the elearning success that they have had in their class. I will also be trying to contact the author of a reading I have read recently about movie stories and small children as I have found the most powerful persuasion for teachers is seeing things happen in real life. Thus I may try and arrange observation visits.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
I have just finished reading this - WOW!!
Crikey Have I just had a "YES!!!!" moment. From page 13 onwards where the author starts discussing the read write web in schools I just kept nodding. Finally I have a simple piece of PD reading to provide to schools re "why blog / wiki" other than just because I say so.
As I am advising schools in this area I am always interested in research to confirm or challenge the path I am on. If anyone has another article to share about blogging / wiki's I would love to exchange ideas. Here is a blog that I am currently following that may be of interest to others in the course. http://weblogg-ed.com/
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Trying to make sense of the term ....?
I googled the question and the following as a wordle I created from (copy / paste) the definitions that I found.
Definitions of ELearning 2.0 on the Web:
Definitions of ELearning 2.0 on the Web:
- Electronic learning (or e-Learning or eLearning) is a type of Technology supported education/learning (TSL) where the medium of instruction is ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELearning_2.0 - refers to a second phase of e-Learning based on Web 2.0 and emerging trends in eLearning. It can include features such as:
www.thewebworks.bc.ca/netpedagogy/glossary.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)