Researching ICLT 'Best' Practice

1,247 views

Published on

A workshop that investigates how Web 2.0 appliances can be reappropriated for instructional use within a

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Researching ICLT 'Best' Practice

  1. 1. Researching ICLT 'Best' Practice Opening activity Introduction Weaving Web 2.0 laboratory Scrapheap challenge Paradoxes around digital learning Knowledge producing schools Knowledge producing classes Knowledge producing teachers Debrief All Hallows' School Michael Ryan Faculty of Education, QUT April 23, 2010 m.ryan@qut.edu.au
  2. 2. Mindmeister Activity In groups: • Who could use this in class, and out of class? For what purposes? • How might it promote learning? • Come up with at least one speculative classroom application.
  3. 3. Mindmeister Wrap-up •! an appliance with low-barriers to entry but long scope •! reappropriation (Feenberg, 1999) •! informed opportunism •! sharing risks •! spill-over •! learning fractals •! reflection * •! collaboration *
  4. 4. Introduction
  5. 5. Introduction objectives: weaving new pedagogy, for blended learning focusing on collaborative knowledge production
  6. 6. Introduction objectives: weaving new pedagogy, for blended learning focusing on collaborative knowledge production clearing myths: digital immigrants; significance of CMS; latest moral panic; primacy of static paper-based textbooks; best practice; transformative potential of IWBs, laptops, ....; bureaucratic innovation; education revolutions
  7. 7. Introduction objectives: weaving new pedagogy, for blended learning focusing on collaborative knowledge production clearing myths: digital immigrants; significance of CMS; latest moral panic; primacy of static paper-based textbooks; best practice; transformative potential of IWBs, laptops, ....; bureaucratic innovation; education revolutions the plan: experimentation around Web 2.0 appliances paradoxes around digital learning research around knowledge production
  8. 8. Weaving curriculum resources (Learning Federation, Wikipedia, etc...) knowledge work appliances (word-processor, Mindmeister, etc...)
  9. 9. Web 2.0 Appliances features: very simple UIs invitation to contribute identity syndication clouds without files tools for audience & contribution settings pedagogic leverage points: mobility low barriers to entry identity play collaboration reification genre appropriation
  10. 10. Web 2.0 Laboratory In groups: • Experiment with Quizlet and slinkset • Who could use them in class, and out of class? For what purposes? • How might they promote learning? • Come up with at least one speculative classroom application for each.
  11. 11. Scrapheap Challenge In groups: • Experiment with listphile, survs, springnote • Who could use them in class, and out of class? For what purposes? • How might they promote learning? • Rate them at: http://bestapps.slinkset.com
  12. 12. Paradoxes around digital learning late age of print ←→ a post-typographic society
  13. 13. Paradoxes around digital learning late age of print ←→ a post-typographic society Warshauer's (2007) paradoxes: the what paradox: ... what do students need to learn in the new digital classroom? what is replaced? ... but traditional literacies can provide gateways to the new, and are more valuable than ever. the how paradox: ... the ability to learn autonomously will indeed be critical in the digital future. However, paradoxically, strong mentorship is required for students to achieve this autonomy, while an overemphasis on student independence can leave students floundering.! the where paradox: ... at the same time that new opportunities increase for powerful out-of-school learning, formal education is actually rising rather than falling in its impact on peopleʼs lives.
  14. 14. Paradoxes around digital learning late age of print ←→ a post-typographic society Warshauer's (2007) paradoxes: the what paradox: ... what do students need to learn in the new digital classroom? what is replaced? ... but traditional literacies can provide gateways to the new, and are more valuable than ever. Warshauer's (2007): the how paradox: ... the ability to learn rejects determinist and autonomously will indeed be critical in the digital instrumentalist positions future. However, paradoxically, strong mentorship is required for students to achieve this autonomy, while advocates a critical, interventionist an overemphasis on student independence can position involving stronger roles for leave students floundering.! teachers. the where paradox: ... at the same time that new opportunities increase for powerful out-of-school learning, formal education is actually rising rather than falling in its impact on peopleʼs lives.
  15. 15. Knowledge Producing Schools
  16. 16. Knowledge Producing Schools Bigum's & Rowan (2009) see: schooling is no longer the job of providing a set of skills to equip students for a stable, non interrupted career the focus shifting to dispositions: critical understandings, strong sense of self, harmonious living in diverse cultures, life-long & life-wide learning, potential to contribute. the schoolʼs role as future proofing: all students to have the potential as skilled, active, productive members of (overlapping) communities
  17. 17. Knowledge Producing Schools Bigum's & Rowan (2009) see: schooling is no longer the job of providing a set of skills to equip students for a stable, non interrupted Bigum's & Rowan (2009) envisage KPS with: career authentic tasks, with authentic products, associated with the focus shifting to dispositions: the production of knowledge supported by experts and/or critical understandings, strong sense of specialist communities self, harmonious living in diverse cultures, life-long & life-wide learning, exposure to, and feedback from a real audience (beyond potential to contribute. the school) the schoolʼs role as future proofing: meaningful use of contemporary technologies in all students to have the potential as achieving goals, rather than a focus on technological skilled, active, productive members of mastery for its own sake (overlapping) communities fundamental and substantial interdisciplinary connections multiple forms of student contributions allowing identification with the category 'good student' by diverse children."
  18. 18. Web Inquiry Projects From the work of Molebash & Dodge (2003), Webquests are a model for inquiry involving, structured, role-based collaboration, construction of productions for authentic audiences and reflection on processes. Web Inquiry Projects are a more open-ended form, suitable for more sophisticated productions in middle, upper and tertiary sectors.
  19. 19. Knowledge Producing Teachers
  20. 20. Knowledge Producing Teachers Breuleux (2001) advocates communities of interpretation that: represent and share emergent good practice share risk and innovation load tackle reforms across-curriculum, across-time
  21. 21. Knowledge Producing Teachers Breuleux (2001) advocates communities of In groups: interpretation that: • Sketch out a professional learning project that involves designing around a cross-curriculum represent and share emergent good practice and/or cross-time issue. share risk and innovation load • It should involve authentic, purposeful knowledge production by students.! ! tackle reforms across-curriculum, across-time • Who would need to get involved? How? What evidence would you gather? How long would it take?
  22. 22. Debrief Why do Web 2.0 appliances need to be “interpreted” or “reappropriated”? What are some of the down-sides of using Web 2.0 appliances for classroom work? If we donʼt completely replace traditional literacies while accommodating more (visual, information, interaction, collaborative, etc), wonʼt it make our jobs harder? Getting students to work with real world issues and audiences is risky, messy and hard to assess. Why should we bother? Canʼt we just buy a book on best practice?
  23. 23. References Allen, M. (2010). Using Web 2.0 in your teaching: ideas, applications and affordances for enhanced educational outcomes. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://netcrit.net/content/2010handoutallenweb2presentation.pdf Breuleux, A. (2001). Imagining the present, interpreting the possible, cultivating the future: Technology and the renewal of teaching and learning. Education Canada, 41 (3). Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://www.education.mcgill.ca/profs/breuleux/onlinepubs/ BreuleuxEdCanFall2001.html de Brun Design (2007). listphile [Computer software]. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://www.listphile.com/ Education Services Australia (2010). The Learning Federation. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://www.thelearningfederation.edu.au Enough Pepper (2010). Survs [Computer software]. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://www.survs.com/ Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning Technology. London: Routledge. MeisterLabs (2010). Mindmeister [Computer software]. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://www.mindmeister.com/ Molebash, P. and Dodge, B. (2003). Kickstarting inquiry with Webquests and Web Inquiry Projects. Social Education, 67(3), 158-162. Openmaru Studio (2010). Springnote [Computer software]. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://www.springnote.com/ Posterous.com (2010). Slinkset [Computer software]. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://slinkset.com/ Sutherland, A. (2010) Quizlet [Computer software]. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://quizlet.com/ Warschauer, M. (2007). The paradoxical future of digital learning. Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 41-49. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http:// www.gse.uci.edu/person/warschauer_m/docs/paradox.pdf Wikipedia Foundation (2010). Wikipedia. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org

×