Some inchoate thoughts from an interested bystander

This seems to be the beginning of a very interesting process of discovery. I suspect that your apparent dissociation of constructivism and necessary pedagogic innovation may be a false paradigm. The evolving sets of related technologies do require the inversion of contemporary notions of teaching/learning and even the teacher/student relationship.

Media and Comms Technologies facilitate pedagogies that place the learner within a fluid set of networks through which they can exert control over the form and structure of information streams.

For the first time students can utilise tools of access, control, manipulation and exploration of information. This is offers stupendous potential to completely redefine the nature and consumption of information and its transformation into knowledge, and the development of higher level thinking skills.

But simple access to mass information is not enough. While it does bring potential efficiency gains, it also spells overload and diversion without concomitant development of tools and processes with which this information can be formed into meaningful experiences and activities that support learning outcomes (I prefer to think of cognitive skills and conceptual frameworks)

There is some serious scaffolding (that may be an unfortunate term in this context)that needs to be built around the technology, in terms of pedagogy, content and practice.

I see this as not necessarily being incompatible with constructivist ideas. Indeed, from certain perspectives, new technologies may make constructivist based pedagogies accessible for the first time – as opposed to a fairly abstract construct. All of this technology is a powerful enabler. Networks/connections together with flexible tools have the potential to truly empower teachers and pupils, redefining the learning process.

Of course, this would result in radically new pedagogies…something that can be tested with some very simple classroom innovations. Unfortunately, such radical changes imply a profound shift of power, or at least the perception of power, between stakeholders, and naturally leads to redefined roles for teachers, to being something like facilitators and mentors I imagine.

Alas, rather large political barriers lie between the visions and their realisation as tangible outcomes. Even the simplest experiments demonstrate what i understand to be your central point.

That means managing profound change with bells on. I concur wholeheartedly with the vision thing, but the implication strike at multiple powerful roots that underpin institutional education. education exists within a socio-political context….ooops…we’ll terminate that segue we could spend an age or two on the implications in a Chinese context alone…….

Despite some of the marvellous work being done, the vast majority of educational experiences remain resolutely pre-web 1.0, much less 2.0. The gap between the institutional expertise and perception of media technologies and the experience of each successive generation, appears to be widening, not narrowing.

Another point: be careful what you ask for. I’ve seen a little the effect of student centred learning…it works, children are liberated and motivated, and teachers can hate it….

In addition I’m chary of naked technology adoption – as pointed out in other comments, the challenge is not to embrace technology, but the design and deployment of usable tools aligned to reformulated learning processes…

Not all of the fancy stuff is necessarily beneficial….in fact some very simple tools would seem to be the most effective. Are serious games actually useful?…personally, i think such environments have great potential, but i find the basic premis of ‘intuitive learning’ and inductive type pedagogies a bit of a funding con – at best very inefficient for many current learning objectives…..i guess that’s another conversation…so I’ll stop.

Apologies of this seems a bit of a ramble…it’s the wee hours here and i wanted to jump in after stumbling upon a very interesting conversation, so i hope you don’t mind.

Thanks for the juicy posts…I’ll have a proper mulch on the connectivism paper now….and be quiet.

Regards

Blabber

This seems to be the beginning of a very interesting process of discovery. I suspect that your apparent dissociation of constructivism and necessary pedagogic innovation may be a false paradigm. The evolving sets of related technologies do require the inversion of contemporary notions of teaching/learning and even the teacher/student relationship.

Media and Comms Technologies facilitate pedagogies that place the learner within a fluid set of networks through which they can exert control over the form and structure of information streams.

For the first time students can utilise tools of access, control, manipulation and exploration of information. This is offers stupendous potential to completely redefine the nature and consumption of information and its transformation into knowledge, and the development of higher level thinking skills.

But simple access to mass information is not enough. While it does bring potential efficiency gains, it also spells overload and diversion without concomitant develoment of tools and processes with which this information can be formed into meaningful experiences and activities that support learning outcomes (I prefer to think of cognitive skills and conceptual frameworks)

There is some serious pedagogy, content and practice
scaffolding (that may be an unfortunate term in this context) that needs to be built around the technology for it to have a chance. Teachers need simple, effective tools and practical stepping stones toguide them.

Nonetheless, I don’t view this as being necessarily incompatible with constructivist ideas. Indeed, from certain perspectives, new technologies may make constructivist based pedagogies accessible for the first time – as opposed to a fairly abstract construct. All of this technology is a powerful enabler. Networks/connections together with flexible tools have the potetnial to truly empower teachers and pupils, redefining the learning process.

Of course, this would result in radically new pedagogies…something that can be tested with some very simple classroom innovations. Unfortunately, such radical changes imply a profound shift of power, or at least the perception of power, between stakeholders, and naturally leads to redefined roles for teachers, to being something like facilitators and mentors I imagine.

Alas, rather large political barriers lie between the visions and their realisation as tangible outcomes. Even the simplest experiments demonstrate what i understand to be your central point.

That means managing profound change with bells on. I concur wholeheartedly with the vision thing, but the implication strike at multiple powerful roots that underpin institutional education. education exists within a socio-political context….ooops…we’ll terminate that segue we could spend an age or two on the implications in a Chinese context alone…….

Despite some of the marvellous work being done, the vast majority of educational experiences remain resolutely pre-web 1.0, much less 2.0. The gap between the institutional expertise and peception of media technologies and the experience of each successive generation, appears to be widening, not narrowing.

Also I would be chary of naked technology adoption – the challenge is not to embrace technology, but the design and deployment of usable tools aligned to reformulated learning goals…not all of the fancy gizmos are necessarily beneficial….for example are serious games actually useful?…personally, i think such environments have great potenial….although i doubt that current designs can begin to deliver effective outcomes…..i guess that’s yet another conversation…so i’ll stop.

Aplogies of this seems a bit of a ramble…it’s the wee hours here and i wanted to jump in, so i hope you don’t mind.

Thanks for the juicy posts…I’ll keep quiet and have a proper mulch on the connectivism paper now.

Regards

Blabber

Carisoprodol….

Can we use this for our class posting? LOL

Those teachers can take a blog or a smartboard or a bag of pipe cleaners and good stuff happens. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We KNOW what works, we just don’t do it.

Yeah — I disagree with this as well. I think there is this persistent perception that what teachers did 10, 20, 30, 40,… years ago was effective (and therefore, is still effective), but I believe that this is incorrect. What teachers used to do — and what some consider now to be classical effective teaching — DIDN’T work for all students. It didn’t work then, it won’t work now.

And what will work now is constantly in flux. It isn’t enough just to become fluent in the new tools — especially if we are just using the new tools in old ways (SMART boards in place of chalk boards, lecturing to students who take notes on laptops, Powerpoint in place of overhead transparencies) — we must now also be fluent in how students learn (through connections, networks, collaboratively, and through real-world activities that are relevant and engaging), and what they need to learn to be successful in a workplace that is looking less and less like the workplace that existed when we were all still in college (before we entered the classroom and lost touch with the “real world”).

I think you are correct — we do need to change teaching “at its roots”… just as we need to change (reinvent) the education system. When I say we need innovation, I mean innovation in everything from the structure of school, function of school, leadership & management of school, and in the teaching/learning process.

Good post Jeff — take care,
Stephanie

It does seem the constructivism has become the “correct answer” in an interview, but isn’t really implemented in very many situations. Unfortunate, I think, because it really does place the learner at the center of knowledge creation.

I guess at the heart of it is that I don’t understand how connectivism informs new classroom practices. What does it mean to you–other than teaching kids how to find information more efficiently? I’m missing how this changes what kids do after they find some information, maybe even better information than they could have 5 years (or 5 months) ago. Seems like what’s important is what happens after the initial investigations.