April 7, 2014

Mitra (2014) future learning

Mitra, S. (2014, April). The future of learning. Plenary given at 48th Annual International IATEFL Conference, International Association of Teaching English as a Foreign Language, Harrogate, England.

Mitra’s plenary shook things up. Passionate Twitter comments applauded for and reeled from research that shows that groups of children can learn most things on their own. Mitra is changing traditional learning-cultures and examining autonomous and collaborative learning outside schools.

Mitra showed that children’s test results decreased as distance from Delhi increased. Many factors were constant:  school funding, buildings, and quantity of teaching. But Mitra questioned the quality of teaching. Mitra asked teachers, “Would you like to work somewhere else?” In Delhi, teachers were happy; 100 miles away, teachers wanted to move closer to Delhi; and 250 miles away, teachers answered “Anywhere but here”. Good teaching is rare in remote places. Throughout the world, test-results decrease as remoteness increases (e.g. socio-economic- and ethnical-remoteness). Good teachers and less-able teachers who up-skill, migrate to better contexts. Mitra experimented with removing teachers from learning contexts.

However computers affect learning, computers will affect learning in similar ways in different contexts. So in 1999, Mitra installed computers for dis-advantaged children in India. To keep conditions constant, Sugata provided no adult guidance. After nine months, children had learned computer literacy skills and functional English. Children learned autonomously and collaboratively when teachers were not present. In two months, other children learned English pronunciation, and other children learned advanced molecular biology of genetics, going from 0% to 30% in pre- and post-tests. Observation changes children’s learning behavior, so Mitra recruited a ‘grandmother’ who merely observed and admired, supplying comments such as “Fantastic!” In two months, the children’s understanding of molecular biology improved to 50% in post-testing. In England, groups of children cluster around computers to solve deep cross-curricular questions like “Why is it that almost all men can grow a mustache but most women cannot?” In our digital-world, children can learn most things by themselves, but in autonomous and collaborative ways.

Mitra examines phenomena as theoretical physicist. In the Theory of Chaos, things remain constant in Ordered Systems, and things are random in Chaotic Systems. But where Ordered and Chaotic Systems meet, Self Organizing Systems occur and order appears out of disorder.  Mitra creates Self Organized Learning Environments (with beamed in ‘grandmas’) to facilitate children’s autonomous and collaborative learning.

Children need internet access, big interesting question and room to learn in autonomous and collaborative ways.  In our assessment-driven educational-cultures, changing assessments could instigate changing questions, curricula, pedagogy, teaching, and learning!

February 27, 2014

Whitton (2010) digital game learning

WhittonWhitton, N. (2010). Learning with digital games: A practical guide to engaging students in higher education. London: Routledge.

 

 

I was curious to read Whitton’s ideas because I’ve investigated vocabulary learning in digital games, but I was surprised by issues relevant to my current research.

Whitton disagrees with Prensky (2001) that generations are digital natives or immigrants: labeling generations is not helpful but limiting. Ability to use technology is not fixed: exposure level and time affect competency and confidence. Whitton also reminds us to consider people involved, organizational issues, the learning context, and nature of technology whe using learning technologies. She offers ideas about how to evaluate the suitability of learning-technologies, based on accessibility and usability.

Whitton summarises general and adult learning theories, which I’m listing as a reminder to revise the originals. It’s time to start writing parts of my thesis: general, adult, digital and community learning!

– Knowles’ (1998) theory of adult learning, andragogy, including purpose, control, awareness of diversity, practical applications, and tasked- focus.
– Savery and Duffey’s (1995) constructivism model, including situated cognition, cognitive puzzlement, social collaboration.
– Grabinger et al (1997) and Land & Hannafin (2000) assertion that online learner-centered learning is influenced by constructivism principles, including support taking responsibility, present multiple views, encourage ownership, offer relevant learning, based on real-life experiences, support collaboration, use multiple digital-tools and rich media.
– Kolb’s (1984) Experimental Learning Cycle, including actively planning, reflecting and integrating theories.
– McConnell (2000) and Palloff & Pratt (2003) state that social constructivism facilitates collaborative learning, allows people to work to their strengths, develops critical thinking skills and creativity, validates ideas, and values different learning styles, preferences, perspectives, and skills.
– Vygotsky’s (1978) social constructivism states that learning occurs first socially and the later individually, and the Zone of Proximal Development is between what learners can do autonomously and with support and guidance.
– Lave & Wagner (1991) Communities of Practice are apprenticeships and learning groups’ norms, processes and identity.
– McConnell (2006) discusses online learning communities.
– Boud & Feletti (1991) define problem-based learning as collaborative solving of real-world, multidiscipline problems, where teachers are facilitators not experts.
– Bloom (1956) separates learning into psycho-motor, affective and cognitive domains, and further defines cognitive for step-by-step objectives as knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.
– Anderson & Krathwohl’s (2001) revision of Bloom’s taxonomy is remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating.

February 27, 2014

Kear (2011) online communities

Kear

Kear, K. (2011). Online and social networking communities: A best practice guide for educators. New York: Routledge.

The internet is not transmission and reception. Users are not passive: they learn interactively and create supportive communities using email lists, newsgroups, podcasts, e-portfolios, social bookmarking, media sharing, chat rooms, instant messaging, conferencing, virtual worlds, shared documents, micro-blogging, VoIP, discussion forums, social network, wikis, and blogs. Digital communication is synchronous and/or asynchronous, private or public, and shared one-to-one, one-to-many or many-to-many. Digital tools constantly evolve and converge, are convenient, flexible, collaborative, can mimic face-to-face contact, engaging, community building, and integrative with everyday life. However, digital-technologies can discourage participation, be impersonal, delay responses, and be overwhelming (information-overload/failure to filter). Formal digital-learning is improved by making navigation simple and transparent, encouraging social participation, providing face-to-face meetings, integrating online activities with everyday activities and assessments. Be aware that learners’ ages, attitudes to studying (deep and/or surface), topic, and discussion and skill development affect learning.

Communities were based around locations; however, people linked by shared beliefs, values, purposes, practices and interaction are communities: “network of interpersonal ties that provide sociability, support, information, belonging, and social identity” (Wellman, 2001), and include digital groups (Preece, 2000; Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Renningar & Shumar, 2002; McConnell, 2006). Online communities are groups (mutual commitment) or networks (known/unknown connections) or collectives (aggregations/actions performed by unconnected individuals) (Dron, 2007; Wiley, 2007). Traditionally information is filtered then published; however, internet information is published and then filtered (Shirky, 2008). Digital communities use stygmergy, contributions from many to develop something valuable.

Communities of practice have mutual engagement, joint enterprise, shared repertoire: members share common purposes, initially observe, actively learn through ‘legitimate peripheral participation, and develop identity (Wenger, 1998). Social presence is required to be perceived as real in digital contexts (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997). Digital learning communities integrate social, cognitive and teaching activities by including open communication, group cohesion and affective responses. Communities of inquiry move through a cognitive trigger-event, exploration, interaction, resolution cycles (Garrison et al, 2000). The Conversational Framework explains dialogue, interaction, and feedback (Laurillards, 2009). The Five Stages Model explains learning with digital-communication: access and motivation, online socialization, informal exchange, knowledge construction, development/reflection (Salmon, 2004).

February 24, 2014

Selwyn (2011) education & technology

Selwyn

 

 

 

 

 

Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and technology: key issues and debates. London: Continuum.

I recommend reading Education and technology: ‘the’ comprehensive overview that questions how technology-use affects education.

Education is formal learning provided by an institution, usually structured, assessed and credentialized (Selwyn, 2012). Formal learning is managed by educational institutes (Rogers, 2003); whereas, informal learning is controlled by learners outside intuitions without external criteria (Livingstone, 2000). Learning is a “means to acquire a new skill or insight” (Illich 1973) and is frequently viewed as a product or process. Selywn briefly explains Behaviourist theories as passive and externally-shaped process; Constructivist theories as exploration and meaning-making; Sociocultural theories as situated within cultural contexts; Bloom’s (1956) psychomotor, affective and cognitive domains;  Situated learning as peers co- constructing knowledge; and Sfard’s (1998) learning through participation. Education is not isolated, but intertwined with families, income, gender, race, households, workplaces,  institutes, communities, cultures, commercial markets, national states and global economies.

Technology in education includes artifacts and devices, activities and practices, and social contexts (Lievrouw & Livingstone, 2002).  Previously, technology was used to seek and access information; however, currently technology enables social interaction, any time any place, and interlinks to other technologies. Information is networked and remains unfinished in a constant state of development by multiple users.

Technology can change learning processes: making learning accessible, affordable, flexible, and active (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008); enabling self-management of learning; encouraging reflective and reflexive practice (Beck-Gernsheim, 1996), promoting critical thinking (Bugeja, 2006), and providing interaction for learning communities. Online communities of practice enable learners to share knowledge in social, informal ways. Learning can now be discovered rather than delivered and negotiated rather than prescribed. We are moving towards user-driven education  (Edson, 2007), where learners seek own learning instead of institutes proving education (Collis & Gommer, 2001).  Learning-technologies may finally challenge persistent educational structures, identified by Illich in 1971, that encourage reliance on educational institutes, discourage self-management of learning, and reinforce societies’ inequalities. Here’s to the future of learning-technologies that may facilitate a change in learning cultures.