July 28, 2015

Biesta (2014) risk of education

Biesta, G. (2014). The Beautiful Risk of Education. London: Paradigm Publishers.

The beautiful risk of education (2013) adds to ideas Biesta presented in his previous books Beyond Learning (2008) and Good education in an age of measurement (2010).  Biesta maintains that schooling has three aims: socialization, qualification and subjectification (i.e. becoming a subject). In this latest book, Biesta proclaims that education needs to embrace risk rather than reduce risk, and he discusses this with reference to creativity, communication, teaching, learning, emancipation, democracy and virtuosity.  Current educational policies aim to make education stronger, more secure, more predictable, and risk-free. However, Biesta asserts that policy-makers oversimplification of learning is potentially damaging and veer away from what education ultimately means. After all education is not a simple transfer transaction between machines. Education is a complex social-interaction between human beings and slow, difficult, out-of-comfort-zone learning that pushes boundaries is the powerful learning that sticks. Instead of seeking to reduce risk, education needs to embrace risk as an essential part of teaching, learning and schooling.

Biesta voices concern over the relatively recent paradigm shift from the traditional teacher as an authority to the constructivist teacher as a facilitator of learning.  Biesta interprets constructivism as a theory of learning not a theory of teaching, and he makes a clear distinction between learning from (leren van) and being taught by (leren aan).  A teacher should not be reduced to an agent that speeds transfer of knowledge from one vessel to another.  Teachers are essential in a learning environment to empower learners to reach beyond their immediate known grasp.  Biesta reminds us that we need to remain aware that teaching does not necessarily result in learning and indeed we cannot predict any of the effects of teaching.

Biesta also discusses teacher education. He declares teacher education has become over-simplified by structuring programs on narrow pre-defined competencies. To be qualified to teach, learner-teachers merely demonstrate achievement of separate competencies. Biesta sees it as insufficient to have knowledge and skills of separate parts of teaching because teachers must be able to perform multiple tasks in complex learning contexts with multiple conflicting factors.  Teacher education also provides a role modelling function so that learner-teachers become aware of the social expectations and shared traditions of teaching. It is this apprenticeship role within an active Community of Practice that Biesta values.  Biesta proposes an alternative to current competency based teacher education, that develops virtuosity and replaces narrow competencies with teachers’  judgements. Biesta states that learner-teachers can learn virtuosity by studying the virtuosity of others. But who is judged as being a virtuoso? Which contexts allow virtuosity to be seen?

February 28, 2014

Stepanek (2014) EAP creatively

Stepanek, I. (2014, February). Implementing creativity in language learning: A practical guide. Paper presented at conference 28. Arbeitstagung des AKS, Vorsprung durch Sprachen, Fremdsprachenausbildung an den Hochschulen, Technischen Universität Braunschweig, Germany.

Starting this blog has surpassed my expectations. I am in the habit of writing: it’s now normal for me to write every day. I’ve finally changed my mantra (after nearly 20 years of academic study) from “I HATE writing!” to “No worries, just write”. I trust learning through huge hours of practical experience, so am sure my writing style and speed will improve over time.

I’m at a foreign language learning conference in Braunschweig, Germany: 28. Arbeitstagung des AKS. The main conference language is German, so I’m limited to attending the occasional presentations in English, but I’ve have just been inspired by “Implementing creativity in language learning: A practical guide” from Libor Stepanek, Masaryk University Language Center, Brno, Czech Republic. Libor bases his teaching methods and learning processes on ideas about creativity from Robinson, Csikszentmihalyi, de Bono, Torrance, Treffinger, Runco, and Gillford among others. He aims to move learners from clear to unclear situations, and from clear to unclear solutions, breaking down students’ barriers of perception, tricking students into using and developing a variety of creative skills, specifically creative fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. I need to talk it him, but somehow he has obtained management approval of a huge university (43,000 students, with approx. 10,000 language center students) to teach without a prepared syllabus, flexibly, using the multidisciplinary class groups as active communities of practice. Libor uses creative practical activities to raise students’ awareness of language, and language learning processes and strategies. He expects time-consuming extensive listening and reading outside of the classroom as students source and select language learning materials for the current learning group. I’m impressed: I’d work on his team.

See Libor’s blog here: www.eapcreatively.blogspot.cz

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).