thank you sunny...

For an amazing link to learning theories.....
http://www.lifecircles-inc.com/Learningtheories/learningmap.html

1. Behaviorist Perspective

Classical Conditioning: Stimulus/Response
Ivan Pavlov 1849-1936 Classical Conditioning Theory
Behaviorism: Stimulus, Response, Reinforcement John B. Watson 1878-1958 Behaviorism Edward L. Thorndike 1874-1949 Connectivism Edwin Guthrie 1886-1959 Contiguity Theory B. F. Skinner 1904-1990 Operant Conditioning William Kaye Estes 1919 - Stimulus Sampling Theory
Neo-behaviorism: Stimulus-Response; Intervening Internal Variables; Purposive Behavior Edward C. Tolman 1886-1959 Sign Theory & Latent Learning Clark Hull 1884-1952 Drive Reduction Theory Keneth W. Spence 1907-1967 Discrimination Learning
2. Cognitive Perspective: Learning as a Mental Process
Gestalt Learning Theory: Perception, Decision making, Attention, Memory, & Problem Solving
Max Wertheimer 1880 -1943 Gestalt Learning Theory Kurt Lewin 1890 - 1947 Field Theoretical Approach Wolfgang Kohler 1887 - 1967 Insight Learning Kurt Koffka 1887 - 1941 Gestalt Theory Leon Festinger 1919 - 1989 Cognitive Dissonance
Information Processing and Computer Models
D.O. Hebb 1904 - 1985 Neurophysiologic Theory George A Miller 1920 - Information Processing Theory Allen Newell 1927 - 1992 General Problem Solver Craik & Lockhart Levels of Processing Allan Paivio 1941 - Dual Coding Theory David E. Rumelhart 1942 - Interactive Activation with Competition
Constructivism: Knowledge is Constructed; the Learner is an Active Creator
David Ausubel 1918 - 2008 Subsumption Theory Jerome Bruner 1915 - Constructivism Jean Piaget 1896 - 1990 Genetic Epistemology Jean Lave Situated Cognition Chris Argyris 1923 - Double Loop Learning Rand J. Spiro Cognitive Flexibility David Kolb Learning Styles John Flavell Metacognition Roger Schank Script Theory
Psychoanalytic: The role of the Unconscious Mind in Learning
Sigmund Freud 1856-1939 Psychoanalytic Theory of Learning
3. Humanistic Perspective: Emotions and Affect Play a Role in Learning
Abraham Maslow 1908-1970 Humanistic Theory of Learning Carl Rogers 1902-1987 Experiential Learning Jack Mezirow Transformational Learning

4. Social Learning Perspective: Learning as a group process
Lev Vygotsky 1896 - 1935 Social Constructivism Albert Bandura 1925 - Observational Learning John Seely Brown Cognitive Apprenticeship

5. General Theories of Memory & Intelligence J. R. Anderson ACT* J.P. Guilford Structure of Intellect Howard Gardner Multiple Intelligences Robert Sternberg Triarchic Theory of Intelligence

6. Instructional Theories John Bransford Anchored Instrution Lee Joseph Cronbach 1916 - 2001 Aptitude Treatment Interaction K.P. Cross CAL- Characteristics of Adult Learners Robert Gagne 1916-2002 Conditions of Learning Malcolm Knowles Andragogy Lev Landa Algo-Heuristic Mager Criterion-Referenced-Instruction Merrill Component Display Theory Reigeluth Elaboration Theory

What is learning..revisited

So what is learning? Questions, questions, it's always questions!

Here's some of the things people say.......

Behaviourism - observable behaviour which relies on repetition, context, reinforcement and clear objectives

Cognitivism - the thinking mind: the act or process of thinking

Humanistic - human growth; the fulfilling of potential

Social/situation - being participative, part of a community of practice

What is it about?

Curiosity? Discovery?  A change? A product? A process? Internal? External? Conscious? Unconscious? Knowing that? Knowing how? Active? Passive?

What about the ways?

Visual - bodily- musical - interpersonal - intrapersonal- linguistic - logical - mathematical

We have dynamic learners, innovative learners, analytic learners and common sense learners......(McCarthy 1980)

Questions questions questions. It's a bit like trying to define who I am.

It's clear that in many of the explanations there's:

Something about the subject - information or as JSB likes to call it 'niche knowledge. '

There's also something about actions, skills or ability.

Then there's something about the wider world, whether this be liberal understanding or comprehension.

"At one extreme lie those unintentional and usually accidental learning events which occur continuously as we walk through life.

Next comes incidental learning - unconscious learning through acquisition methods which occurs in the course of some other activity...

Then there are various activities in which we are somewhat more conscious of learning, experiential activities arising from immediate life-related concerns, though even here the focus is still on the task...

Then come more purposeful activities - occasions where we set out to learn something in a more systematic way, using whatever comes to hand for that purpose, but often deliberately disregarding engagement with teachers and formal institutions of learning...

Further along the continuum lie the self-directed learning projects on which there is so much literature...

More formalized and generalized (and consequently less contextualized) forms of learning are the distance and open education programmes, where some elements of acquisition learning are often built into the designed learning programme.

Towards the further extreme lie more formalized learning programmes of highly decontextualized learning, using material common to all the learners without paying any regard to their individual preferences, agendas or needs. There are of course no clear boundaries between each of these categories." (Rogers 2003)

Bloom - ers

Talking about learning has been a feature of much of my life at present. I am moving jobs at work so currently trying to pass on my collective knowledge. Now the aim of these session was to give a quick half hour of the key messages. Today was part two, of delivering some peer training to my team about thinking about writing training materials. In the past few years, I have updated and completed all the projects around training resources, and over the last few months my team have been given the next round to do, with me being the expert!

I have talked before about the approach we take to our training. The fact that it is split into two elements - what we call the learning and the validation parts - a bit like AM and PM. (acquire then participates? although already we seemed to have separated them out). We also look at what we want from an individual at the end. What's the outcome - what should they be able to do, what should they know, and how should they feel?

 

                                       

 The first part of my peer training was focused the learner and the subject. The activities I ran were designed to get them thinking about a number of things. My first activity asked what kind of things they like, and how do they like to learn. I give them a number of examples and they hold up happy sad or not sure faces. This activity is designed to get them thinking both internally and externally and realising that even in the room people like different things. When we design learning, it can't just be designing the things we like to do - not everyone is like us . (thank goodness!).

I then run a even sillier activity, where I split them into pairs. I get them to pick out a topic from a pack of cards. I like to have a mix of topics - like: the best things about being a frog; how to make a cup of tea; the life and times of oliver twist; why rock music is cool.... I then ask them to come up with the top five messages/points about these subjects. After they have spent five minutes doing this, they get to pick another card- this time their audience. This includes people like the territorial army, teenage girls, scientists, the local WI....you get the drift. And then they have to think about this audience and then tailor the subject to what they think the audience might want to know and the method that they think should be used to convey this information. Now this is geared more towards the presentation than training, but the principles are the same.

What is it you need them to know, and what is it they think they need to know.

By thinking about you audience, or learners, who they are, how they act, misconceptions about them, you can start to think about how you make the topic relevant and interesting for them. I then ask them to think about breaking down that topic into knowledge, skills and behaviours.

At the end of this session I also did a bit about what you can and can't cover in a training session and show how some of our current training objectives can't be met! After all, they will be writing the objectives.

Part 2. So this week was part two - the method. I realised while preparing, and also while doing the research on learning this week, that  a lot of our training is based on blooms taxonomy. So this week we looked at blooms - although, probably not as in depth as some might like. The aim of the session? For them to realise that some methods might be more appropriate to the outcomes than others. And also that training should be progressive. Now the youth programme in scouting is meant to be challenging and progressive - so surely training should be too.

Blooms taxonomy is really useful in this as each of the areas, cognitive, psycho-motor and affective (knowledge , skills , behaviour) as the theory has levels of development.

So firstly we did an activity in which I gave them about thirty verbs and they had to decide whether the verb was cognitive, psycho - motor or affective (although I used the terms knowledge, skills, behaviour.) We then looked at a number of different methods(lecture, case study, game, demonstration etc) and talked about which of the areas could be covered in this method. So for example, a demonstration might a skill, but for those on the periphery, it could be knowledge. We then took the three areas one step further, and I introduced them to the theory around the stages of blooms. Basically, one needs to master the lower stages before you can move onto the next. You can't understand without knowledge. You can't apply skills to different situations without first mastering it yourself...etc.

  So why is this important? Because in a training situation, you can't ask people to do the complicated stuff if they haven't mastered the lower levels. However, if you make people do only the lower level stuff, and they already know that, they will get frustrated or bored. The point was, that you need to design training to be challenging and progressive, without losing the interaction and the real life examples that allow people to 'learn'.

So why is all this important. Because this week we are talking about learning. And although blooms doesn't cover it all, this is what I live. It's about becoming, it's about progression, it's about the learner identity as much as it's about a content. Because, all my study this week, made it much easier to say this IS a way to do things.

What is learning.

My definition. (as asked for without thinking too much)

"Learning is the process of defining and redefining my knowledge skills and behaviours to the internal and external world around me. It helps me to understand who I am, what I do and how and why I do it. It can change the way I think or feel or do. It is a continual cycle"

Why this definition? I thought about all the times that I say 'I learned'. Normally this applies when I think or feel differently about a person or a subject. Often it is as a result of the experiences that I have. Also, I think that my working life has been a very social one. I worked for many years in the pub industry, and now work with volunteers. It is very people and social orientated. Therefore I learn by interacting with the world.

My teaching others was about learning by doing. So, I might show someone how to pull a pint, or to cash up, or to clean a floor...and then they learn how to deal with customers, make decisions etc, by me mentoring them, giving them support to be more confident. I often talk about learning by stealth. For me this is about giving people opportunities to be empowered and to make their own decisions. This way they learn to do what they think is right. and if they do it wrong, they learn for next time. Trial and error. But also that they/I don't dwell too much on the fact that it has gone wrong. So when they learn they are doing something - evolving -  mastering a skill or becoming a leader/manager.

This empowerment perspective, I have realised, is the way I like to learn. I don't like people telling me I need to attend this training or that training. I like options - to choose what is important to me. I might indeed learn something - but I might not enjoy it. A lot of my learning for work has been self directed. If I am going to do this job to the best of my ability, then I need to know about this, type thing. I want to know why it's like that, why did they act that way, what are the motivationals, how can I use it, how does that work for me. So if I think about what that is, the learning is learning something new, applying knowledge/skills/emotions in a new way, or in a new environment or with new people. Or it could be applying it in a better way - eg. getting quicker at doing something. I think this is why I loved Nardi and Days ecology metaphor.

So learning to me is intrinsically linked to who I am as a person and how I perceive things. I am sure that it's more than that, but that's my initial reaction!

Acquisition and participation in context with technology

Time for a bit of a time out. I know that the AM and PM metaphors are important , but I am still trying to get a grip of what they actually mean. So here's my summary, helped along by Paavola et al (2003).

Acquisition is the individual learner acquiring 'knowledge' - the having.

Participation is the learner is a part of society; the novice to the master through doing.

Identity Change - this is about transformation of the individual - they change as a person.

Paavola et al also help to focus back on what this means for learning and also technology. (here the discuss AM, OM and knowledge - creation - which is developing something new while learning - the collaborative approach)

Acquisition - goal is to acquire factual or conceptual knowledge - passing receiving or actively constructing in one's head. Learning is designed to provide facts, and exercises to help remember the facts.

Participation - goal is to participate in actions and practices that are important in some area of expertise - doing things - enculturation. Learning material emphasizes authentic tasks, activities and practices; simulates real life process, integrate fact based knowledge to procedural knowledge; may include expert models and joint activities with peer group.

Knowledge- creation - goal is to learn collaboratively and develop tools/knowledge for future use. Learning material presents knowledge widely, often from different perspectives; presents questions, answers, theories and explanations; concentrates on the long term process so learners develop expertise and uses tools that support knowledge creation and building.

"Does the learning material emphasize, for example, propositional knowledge and school book like knowledge, or authenticity of knowledge and sources of knowledge? Or is the idea to instigate learners’ own knowledge advancement and knowledge building."

It's easy looking at this to start thinking about how technology and learning activities can therefore support the metaphors.

But that leaves us with an awful lot of metaphors and theories...so a quick recap.

Week two Instructional technology paper talked about how technology should be used to support the learning approach. Here they used behaviourism, cognitivism and humanism as the approaches. Behaviourism with its facts and skills, drills and practise and its teacher centred approach mirrors much of the AM, and instructional ICT is the best use of technology. Cognitivism with its development of metacognitive skills may benefit from technology that helps learners to seek for themselves - there is probably some AM and some PM approaches in this. Humanism with its learner centred approach benefits from technology like conferencing which brings together the social side - and is very much a PM approach.

Here the relationship between the teacher and the learner determined the type of learning approach. It was clear in John Seely Browns speech that he was very much for the participative approach and rejected the acquisition approach! We learn, according to JSB through our participation with the world.

It's also interesting to reflect back on Livingstone(2001) paper about informal learning. He categorized learning around the structures that it is presented in. So education requires the curriculum and the teacher and learners being instructed (ala AM); Non formal or further education is still assisted by a curriculum and a teacher, but the learner is the motivator in acquiring new skills. Informal education is the work based/incidental and spontaneous instruction by mentors or teachers, without a formal curriculum, but within a discipline or area of knowledge. Then finally informal learning is the pursuit of individual knowledge or skill without the presence of a externally imposed curriculum. Technology in Education can therefore be used constructively in supporting the process; whereas when you get to the informal learning, individuals are likely to use the tools around them - ie the internet, phones etc.

I will come back to this I am sure, but it is interesting to start thinking about how technology fits with all of these things; especially when many are of the opinion that technology should be integral/enhance the process of learning it supports.

Paavola, S., Ilomäki, L., Lakkala, M. and Hakkarainen, K. (2003) 'Evaluating virtual learning materials through the three metaphors of learning.' Paper Presented in the Symposium Designing Virtual Learning Material EARLI 10th Biennial Conference 2003.

Moving beyond the metaphor

This paper in the further reading action helped to put some perspective on the idea of different metaphors. The paper discusses what it means to look through the ‘lens’ of different metaphors of learning and contextualises what this means about the transfer of learning in a vocational context.

Once again we are told that a lot of educational policy makes assumptions about learning that research contradicts.

“Transfer of learning” - an interesting topic in itself, but it looks at the dependency of human conduct, performance or learning on prior experience – so in the paper’s terms “when we apply what we know to situations, similar and new.”

The lens

Propositional	Skill	Participation	Transformation
What is learnt is a product, thing or substance: independent of learner (the mind is a container)	What is learnt is a thing or substance independent of learner: but skills lodge in learners body rather than mind	What is learnt is complex social construction and subsides in individual learner. (complex entity that extends beyond learner; set of more or less complex practices; social construct undergoing continuous change)	Learner is an integral part of learning. Each learner constructs their own understanding.
Learning involves moving thing from one place to another – an accumulation of products	Learning involves movement form place to place	Learning of newcomers move from being insignificant to greater prominence. Learner moves not what is learnt	Learning is an evolving process that includes individual learning
Learner is independent and separate from context in which it is learnt.	Learning is separate from and independent of the context in which it was learnt.	What is learnt is shaped by the context in which learnt And Learning and learner change as context change	Learning involves emergence of novelty as new understanding/context is formed
Examples: memorisation, quiz show success Linked to acquisition metaphors	Examples: Generic skills, employability skills, key skills	Examples: Learning in workplace, initiation or inductions Linked to metaphors of learning as an activity	Examples: Englestroms activity theory.  Supports scaffolding metaphors.
Doesn’t tell us how teacher retains knowledge after transfer.	Much of skills is implicit or tacit, so doesn’t conceptualise this	Hard to understand about individual learner – how have they changed?	Does not across individual change and changing context

Transfer of learning? The paper tells us that successful movement is not about knowledge transfer or general knowledge; but involves the different dispositions that people develop – cultural, social, economic, symbolic. Learning is a changing relational web in which the learner plays a part. This relational web is in a process of constant change. Learning is part of and inherently shaped by it’s context.

Learning is Becoming.

“…when a learner constructs or reconstructs knowledge or skills, they are also reconstructing themselves.”

“ ..people become through learning and learn through becoming whether they wish to do so or not, and whether they are aware of the process or not. ”

  

Hager, P. and Hodkinson, P. (2009) ‘Moving beyond the metaphor of transfer of learning’, British Educational Research Journal, vol.35, no.4, pp.619–38; also available online at http://learn.open.ac.uk/ local/ libezproxylink.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1080%2F01411920802642371 (last accessed 21st February 2012).

Metaphors and practices.

I have already said that I like metaphors – so this should be an interesting topic to explore.

Thorpe, the author of this weeks study materials, tells us that our assumptions about learning drive the way we learn and how we deliver learning to others and that normally we focus on how learning happens and not what learning is.

In work, it’s all about knowledge, skills and behaviour – how do we want the individual to be transformed? What should they know, what will they be able to do, and how will they feel. I train others in this process.

What’s the role of the metaphor?

We are introduced to Sfard and a paper from 1998. I think it’s important that we remember the date, as much of what she is discussing seems like common sense. But then common sense often has a hard time – and I am sure this is especially true in academia, where everyone wants his or her theory to be the ‘one’. If you look in google scholar you will find that lots was happening in 1998 around theories for learning. The key message of the paper is that you cannot cover everything with one metaphor…you can’t put all your eggs in one basket. Maybe that’s not a good comparison. Everyone needs a coat but most people have more than one (unless you are my partner) because the coat you wear will depend on where you live, what size you are, what the weather is like etc etc.

“no two students have the same needs and no two teachers arrive at their best performance in the same way”

Anyway back to Sfard. Acquisition and Participation. AM and PM. (which is interesting as I find it easier to acquire information in the morning but would rather have meetings and participate with others in the afternoon) Apparently these are the two opposing theories about learning.

What’s the difference? Acquisition is about knowledge. Getting it, storing it, passing it on. It’s an individual capitalist state of having something. Participation is more socialist, it’s about knowing, about participating and becoming part of a greater whole. (see metaphors!)

But wait – Sfard tells us that this is not a metaphor of learning – this is about how we learn – the mechanism. She also warns us that extreme language may lead us into a dictatorship of the metaphor! Sfard reckons there needs to be an equilibrium – a patchwork quilt if you were of metaphors. The right one for the right situation. So we probably all get that no metaphor can cover everything.

So what about my learning? Do I acquire or participate? I probably go round in circles. I participate to acquire and acquire to participate, and often don’t know what came first.  I use technology a lot to get facts and papers; to listen to video links and webinars. It’s all in the linguistics and for everyone, I think that these metaphors are relevant. They are relevant because they are our experience. We have mostly grown up in a education system that requires us to know certain things, then we move on to a working life, where mostly what we learn from participating with others in our chosen environment. I think that most of us a selfish learners. It revolves around us.  My learning is for me – but it helps me make sense of my world, my experiences, my job – and also gives me some pleasure and fun. (Very important remember!)

Having more – doing more – being more : knowledge skills behaviour maybe?

acquisition of learning?

If one of my pet rats eats my notes....does that mean he has acquired learning?
Or is he participating as he has ingested them?

My experience of learning.

So we keep getting asked to think about our experience of learning, so during a long train journey today I have pondered just that.

As a young kid I loved to read, draw and make things. I remember making lots of different clothes for peg dolls from a young age. I also loved nature programmes and had loads of animal and picture books. I read fast – I liked to read and jumped ahead in my class. I wasn’t a popular kid though. This may be partly because by the time I was 8, I had been to about 4 different schools because we moved around with dad’s job. So I had to adapt quickly to different experiences and new people quickly. I was always a ‘thinking’ child apparently, but also had lots of friends.

Come secondary school I don’t really remember much – except for the teachers who were cool or who helped me out.  We didn’t have computers, but we went on lots of trips, used videos from the bbc – and even watched blackadder in history, which at that point was quite avant garde! I remember that I picked up concepts quickly, but also infuriated my teachers by doing things a quicker way. The phrase ‘I need to see you do the workings out the proper way’ was heard often. I liked exams, and learnt by rote key dates or sentences, so that when I got into an exam, I would write them down immediately, and then go on and formulate my answers. I remember distinctly my calculator breaking in my maths exam – and me not knowing that there was a reset button and doing everything by long division. I got an A by the way, so it was ok! I also changed my focus from sciences to humanities at the last minute when I decided on what A levels I would do. I decided that I was bored with science, even though I was good at it, and I didn’t want to be a vet anymore as I would have to studied for like…a million years!

At Uni I only remember the good bits. Probably like most people I didn’t take full advantage of the study around me. I chose a subject that I was really interested in, and being that there was still grants then, and that I was the first in the family to go to uni, I felt that was OK. I preferred the metaphorical stuff to the historical. I liked giving things meaning and knowing why people thought certain things. I mean, it’s not often you talk about Einstein’s theory of relativity and how it fits with the concept of gaia (I studied Theology at Durham). However I was also engaged in lots of other things at university. I was active in my JCR, working locally and running a theatre company. These experiences probably taught me more about me as a person than academia did. Thus my experiential learning continued.

In work, most ‘learning’ was either a practical skill or a social skill. I was a pub manager for ten years, so it was about mastering practical skills as well as people. I continued to find people fascinating and in a pub you see the best and worst of people. I am not sure I had a lot of ‘training’, but when I trained others it was through mentorship and showing and coaching people. Most of my managers became managers because they got to do a little more, then a little more…and oh look, you can do it all now. Learning by stealth I like to call it!

When I started my masters last year, it took some time to kick start my brain, and get used to being immersed in academia. After all, I had come from non-formal world in speech and language.

But has my learning changed? I still work, both in work, and in my study, by gather information, possibly exploring other sources, making notes and summarising. Then I like to share that with others, and give it meaning for me in my personal situation and experience. What does that mean for me, and how can I use it?

I do this a lot in training too. I like to deliver personal anecdotes or experiences – concrete examples of whatever I am talking about. What do I like? I need time to explore and discover (I love rock pooling). I need to get my head around things, and often to do that I need to explore. Technology has greatly enabled me to do this, although I used to do this in the library too when at Uni – it’s just easier on the internet! I get impatient when individuals dominate because they want to prove how knowledgeable they are. I like lectures – provided they are not too long and the presenters are interesting. For several years we used to go to lectures at the natural history museum and they were great. I don’t seem to get on so well with audio only without concentrating really hard, but when I attend a webinar I find this easier, although I also have some visual stimulus as well. I like there to be some fun and frivolity. One of the lasting memories I will have of the tutor group in H807 is the fun we had in forums, while also discussing some serious topics. I also like to debate to increase my understanding.

So why does all this matter? Well we are/will be discussing what learning is. Now until two years ago I had never heard of learning of learning theories, so I find it quite enlightening to match them to my experiences. Probably, like most personality tests I get – I am a little of everything!

Week 2 Further reading....technology and learning

This week the further reading called to me, more than acticity 2c (which was labelled as optional if I did 2b)

Instructional Technology:Pedagogy for the Future

An interesting discourse in this paper about the role of technology, as related to pedagogies that already exit. In fact the paper points out that some pedagogies have already changed and we can use technology to enhance them in different ways.

Affordances come into play here (thank you H807!).Technology can afford a number of things.

Point one – the use of specific technology should match the learning approach.Computer assisted instruction, possibly some audio and some video can afford the presentation of facts and skills, drills and practice and maybe beneficial for the behaviorist approach, where learning is teacher centred. The constructivist approach, where the teacher and learner share responsibility for active learning, and where learning is also about developing metacognitive skills can benefit from technology that increases interactions and enables the learner to get more hands on. The use of the internet, email, audio and video can help to develop the metacognitive skills. The internet and conferencing technology have greater interaction and high reliance on the learner engagement – it is more learner centred – and thus more appropriate for the humanist approach, where the acquisition of knowledge is followed by the individual personalism of what that means in the context of oneself, others understanding and the world.

Internet and conferencing technology would be inappropriate for learners who demand more of a teachers time and some technology may push learners outside of their comfort zone, with too much focus on independent study. However audio only may be frustrating for the learner centred approach as there is no interaction.

Point 2 – Age and development does matter: the use of technology should match conceptual appraoch. Here the paper dicusses the fact that young people develop their ability to learn and  until about 12, they cope best with concrete examples when being presenting with information. IT could be used to excellent effect to do this. As ideas become more abstract, and the learners and their thinking mature, the use of conferencing, video and internet can increase the personal  interactionand shared experiences. Once again it is about teaching at an appropriate level. Too high a level of abstraction will frustrate those who need concrete examples. Those who need abstract examples, will be bored with concrete examples.

Some interesting things to ponder moving forward.

Radical Pedagogy.

I loved reading this paper – it was very enaging. This paper presents many of the views about the good and the bad of using technology in education and asks us to consider the approach. It remind us that traditionally pedagogical appraoches involve the teacher as the knowledge giver and the student as receiver.

Key points : Technology and pedgogy are interrelated – “no school can be better than it’s teachers”

The paranoia and promise are explored: zealots promising that technology will transform educationa nd critics warning of the ‘development of a generation of antisocial nerds’, or concerns that without technology society will fall behind. (I am sure these arguments surfaced in the paper about developing countries.) Technology can be presented as a trojan horse (reducing costs, improving teaching, providing evidence of excellence, helping upskill graduate) and there is a need to critical engage with with.

We are provided with an intersting insight from Postman:

“In introducing the personal computer to the classroom, we shall be breaking a four hundred year old truce between the gregariousness and openness fostered by orality and the introspection and isolation fostered by the printed word. Orality stresses group learning, cooperation, and a sense of social responsibility….”

 Are these not the same arguments that are being proposed in the opposite way for social learning using technology?!!

The paper makes it clear that what happens in the classroom is the responsibility, and later talks of the need for teachers to be rewarded for being good teachers, and the importance of upskilling them. (Again echoes from the developing countries paper).

“It is not enough for educators to provide students with a map of the information highway. There are critical questions to consider about highways in general, and how humans travel through their environment”

• Learning requires active participation of the student
• People learn in different ways at different rates
• Learning is both an individual and a group process

 Instructional technology: pedagogy for the future, The Journal, December 1997 (last accessed 16^th February 2012).

Travers, A. and Decker, E. (1999) New technology and critical pedagogy, Radical Pedagogy (last accessed 16^th February 2012).

eeerrr...technology!!!!

Apologies if anyone is following my blog. I seem to be having technical difficulties with blogger.
Sorry for the constant changes in patterns/background etc.

I think it's because I keep cut and pasting from documents.
Oh well.....

Technology and Pedagogy in other countries

The second part of our activities this week introduced us to a couple of papers about the adoption of technology in other countries. Robin Mason, the resource author asks us " if the only resource is the teacher, a teacher centric pedagogy is quite understandable".  Actually there is more than just a lack of resource behind this statement. This is about lack of resource for teacher development and understanding as well as lack of physical resource like books and technology.

The papers explore universities in Nepal and Bhutan, with similarities and differences. Here the teacher is the 'revered' expert and learning is about knowledge transmission (going back to our Cartesian viewpoint). One Bhutanese man talks about the different ways of teaching that he experienced while studying in the UK, but then on his return to Bhutan, having to adopt the old ways. This made me think about a recent experience of mine. Having been asked to provide some training workshop, I got my brief. It stated that the style of the workshop was not to be too interactive - as participants had expressed that they wanted more from the 'expert' at the front, rather than activities where they share their own knowledge. Oh dear - this goes against JSB discussions from last week.

I did a lot of further reading around this subject as I found it immensely interesting. Views of education across the world vary, and it's interesting that often discussions are focused on the western idea that education has to fit with the pressures of economic development. Basically the world economy is changing, technology drives this, and therefore we have to stay up to date and educated to keep up with it. I guess this becomes much harder in a global world. One of the studies I looked at, Weismann, Why do students in some countries do better, there is a suggestion that it is the difference in educational institutions that play a bigger role than the differences in resources devoted to education. More money doesn't mean better education.

The crux of the article was that by improving the institutional environment, ensuring that all those in it felt involved, then they would have the incentive to make it better. Weisman talked about some key components that were important:

·         centralised exams

·         distribution of decision making

·         level of teacher influence

·         government involvement in decisions

·         private sector competition.

But wait a minute - aren't these some of the things that we have issue with in this country?

In ICT or I see tea, Shield (2011) discussed the use of ICT in developing countries and picks up some of the previous discussions about education. She talks about how the 'reasons ' behind needing ICT has changed over the years. This includes

·         human capital and economic growth- path to modernisation and global competitiveness

·         inclusivity - getting equity, social inclusion and access to basic education and thus expanding educational access and quality

Currently:

"Its proponents arguing that ICT improves educational quality, develops critical thinking skills, expands access, increases economic competitiveness and facilitates inclusion in a rapidly expanding global information society." (Shields, 2011)

"..they further claim that ICT supports project-based, collaborative approaches to learning, instilling critical thinking and problem-solving skills that will prepare students to compete in the global knowledge economy." (Shields, 2011)

In Shields view, often the arguments for ICT are based on no evidence.

"....elaborates at length the benefits of ICT in education; concentrating on the presupposed potential or theoretical benefits of ICT rather than presenting evidence that supports its claims. This lack of empirical justification is common in work on ICT in education; "(Shields, 2011)

" extensive study of technology in Californian schools, Cuban (2001, 133) found ‘no clear and substantial evidence of students increasing their academic achievement as a result of using information technologies’, and his ultimate conclusion that ‘the investment of billions of dollars over the last decade has yet to produce worthy outcomes’ (197) should serve as a poignant warning for future work. "(Shields, 2011)

There is an interesting point about NGO's and private schools - both of which  are funded based externally, and are often based on performance. Therefore the introduction of the latest technology is a good selling point - although what they actually do with the technology can be very little.

"While government policies on education consistently stress the need for ICT, there is an inconsistency and incoherence in their rationales for doing so. Instead of an authentic, self-identified justification, ideas such as economic competitiveness, ‘computer literacy’ and social equity are borrowed from the continually changing global discourse on ICT and development."(Shields, 2011)

So what does this mean for us? Should we think about resources and pedagogy when considering the approach to take? For me it is interesting that some of the arguments and discussions being had about the use of technology in developing countries, are still the arguments and discussions we currently have. Are we truly student-centred in our approach in the west yet? What is the role of learning? Pursuit of knowledge? Self Development? Career training? Should pedagogy be culturally sensitive, as much as it might be age sensitive?

The development of distributed learning techniques in Bhutan and Nepal

Shields, R. (2011) ‘ICT or I see tea? Modernity, technology and education in Nepal’, Globalisation, Societies and Education, vol. 9, no. 1, pp.85–97; also available online at http://web.ebscohost.com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/ ehost/ detail?vid=3&hid=10&sid=c763fe6d-a484-4a34-b84b-bf47a1748f97%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=a9h&AN=57749333 (last accessed 16th February 2012).