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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)