PAT to PDP (the missing link)

October 30, 2009 at 12:16 am (1st Year Experience, PG-Cert, Student Support, learning)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

After considerable reflection on how to make stronger links between the Personal Academic Tutorial (PAT) system in the Academy and Personal Development Planning (PDP) framework (as identified in my Lighting a Fire post) I have suggested a solution to my colleagues. By extending our PAT student group support to include mentoring indivduals in reflection and evidence gathering (using Mahara) we add a further layer to thier learning experience.  PAT then becomes interwoven with PDP, using ePortfolio’s as the tool to accomplish this. An equal distribution of  1st year students amongst the lecturing staff from the outset would ensure that every student recieves learning support and each member of staff shares an equal workload.

We have decided to trial this method using a current assignment that I have set the first year cohort (see An Introduction to ePortfolio post). I have assigned a lecturer to a group of 5 or 6 individuals and have asked them to make comment on the views that the students have posted. It is hoped that, by the assignments submission deadline, every student will have a few lines of formative feedback to support them. This may only act as an encouragement to continue, but at this stage, may be enough. Providing this early scaffolding is essential in embedding reflective processes as well as orientating the students in using new tools, which they can use to manage and deepen their learning.

Leave a Comment

Lighting a Fire

October 19, 2009 at 8:03 pm (1st Year Experience, PG-Cert, Student Support, employability, learning)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s been a while since I have reflected in this manner and I must confess that it has been difficult to restart, especially since I have only just returned to teaching. This in itself is a point I will return to in a later blog i.e. How to encourage my students to reflect outwith term time?

“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

As part of my final assignment on the PG-Cert course I decided to take on the challenge (opportunity?) of embedding Personal Development Planning (PDP) within the School of Drama. Most undergraduate and post-graduate courses within the school have some degree of PDP already in existence, the methods were somewhat fragmented and scattered. I chose to introduce the concept of ePortfolio learning to the whole school first, by redesigning an already existing introduction session hosted by two of my colleagues (Jamie McKay & Christine Murphy). Thankfully they were both open to the suggestion and based on student feedback from last year, we went about developing the session. It was agreed that the length of the session had to be re-assessed so we moved from one three hour session to four consecutive sessions, each lasting 1.5 hours. These shorter sessions were more manageable, especially as the School of Drama intake had almost doubled, with several new courses coming online this year. We decided on 4 main themes that we wished to cover, these were:

  • Evidence Gathering
  • Reflection
  • Goal Setting
  • Employability

However, we wanted to allow the students to explore what PDP meant to them. They were to be reorganised into four groups and given the question “What is PDP?” We were aware that some secondary schools and certain employers had instigated PDP frameworks in their respective environments already, we wanted to ascertain if the students had been exposed to these processes already. The students were then asked to write down keywords that captured the essence of their understanding. The results were surprising, nearly all 16 groups, throughout the day, had a grasp of the concept already and few required prompting. A few of the groups had no experience of PDP but still managed to find most of the keywords. Most encouraging was the fact that all of the groups seemed to understand the link between PDP and reflection.

We then presented the QAA definition of PDP:

“a structured and supported process undertaken by an individual to reflect upon their own learning, performance and/or achievement and to plan for their personal , educational and career development.”  QAA (2002)

As expected we were met with blank stares, so we launched into our own interpretation of this sentence. I had ’spiced’ up the old PowerPoint slides with bright and colourful graphical animations, which were designed to catch the eye and hopefully be retained in the memory. Feedback from the session seemed to support this. I then presented another quote, which specifically summarised the process of reflection:

“Follow effective action with quiet reflection. From quiet reflection will come even more effective action.” (Drucker, 1909)

This allowed me to outline reflective practice in it’s simplest terms and lead me to suggest 3 simple reflective questions that the students should consider as a starting point for their own reflective learning. These were:

  1. What did I do well?
  2. What didn’t I do well?
  3. What will I do next?

The next slide outlined learning progression and the transition points that the cohort may have encountered on their way to the Academy. I emphasised these points as being both goals and barriers that had to be overcome before they could progress. I also pointed out that the students would have had to exercise elements of PDP in order to break down these barriers and achieve their goal. The slide also served to emphasise that learning (through PDP) doesn’t stop after graduation from HE, but continues through a framework of CPD, during employment.

PDP.007

To further impress upon the cohort the importance of reflection and how it relates to three main aspects of their lives (Personal, Academic & Career), Jamie showed how these three can come together and where the overlap happens between any two, we suggested questions to reflect upon. Where all three converge, reflection through self review becomes central to the learning process.

PDP.009

The following slide simply showed where the individual fits into the learning process i.e. student centred with a Personal Academic Tutorial system acting as the next immediate framework for support which in turn is embedded in PDP. Finally the students chosen subject forms the underlying foundation on which to base their learning.

PDP.009

It was at this point that I took over and explained the advantages of using an ePortfolio as a tool to drive PDP. I had already delivered this content before to my PG-Cert class as a Pecha Kucha, so I knew it all inside-out. This time, I slowed it down by taking out the timings and any irrelevant slides. The result was encouraging, there was a host of interest from the students, with lots of questions to answer after each session. The critical incident form I posted on Moodle seemed to back this up.

Christine then went on to explain the PAT system within the Academy. This was probably the least thought-through aspect of the sessions and I felt that we lost the momentum that had been built up until now. We had no supporting images, but most importantly, hadn’t adequately linked PAT with PDP. Much more work needs done on this for next year. We need to work more closely on how to marry PAT to PDP, this year it became an afterthought. I think this was due to the fact that PAT had already become fairly established, so we neglected it, leaving it to languish unsupported. The result was a muddied, confused  experience for the students. Again, the CIQ feedback supported this. Most of the criticism of the session was aimed at this portion of it. The responsibility for addressing this must be shared between the three of us and learned from for next year.

To further compound the problem, we then asked the students to fill in a PAT form without much guidance on how to. The reason for this was to a) give the students a first try at completing one, b) provide a base-line for the PAT process to build from and c) begin the process of PDP. It wasn’t until the final session that we tried to change the format and provide guidance for each section of the form, prior to cohort filling them in. This seemed to help the students a little. Further reflection is required on how to deliver this more effectively in future.

We had decided to print business cards with both the Mahara & Moodle URL’s on them, along with the number to call for absence reporting. This was in an attempt to help the students remember these important bits of information and perhaps also remind them to at least try Mahara. Moodle is all but useless to them if their courses don’t provide content, the absence number in mandatory, the only aspect of the card that the students have any control of is the Mahara address. A faint spark, but a spark nonetheless.

1 Comment

RSAMD Mahara

June 28, 2009 at 9:08 am (1st Year Experience, 2nd Year Experience, Flexible Delivery, PG-Cert, Student Support, assessment, employability, learning)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ePortfolio’s

“An unfolding narrative of a unique learning journey”

(JISC 2008)

How can ePortfolio solution’s such as Mahara provide and enhance employability skills through Personal Development Planning to Academy students?

Current research being carried out by organisations such as JISC and BECTA have identified that e-Portfolio’s can enhance Employability Skills, Lifelong Learning provision, Internationalisation, Retention, Widening Participation, Achievement and Attainment Levels along with offering a high level of Personalisation to the learner. (JISC 2008) With these high level agenda items in mind and a pressing need for an improved Personal Development Planning framework within the Academy, this investigation was both timely and required.

The Academy’s Learning and Teaching strategy clearly states that its mission which, in essence, is to nurture creativity through a focus on the individual through the promotion of innovative methodologies and the exploitation of new and emerging technologies.

The term portfolio has a range of meanings, depending on the context you are engaged with, with Higher Education it can be best described as a collection of artifacts (evidence) presented alongside associated reflections for learning. This archive is collated and drawn on by the learner as evidence of learning achievement. These achievements can then be used to plan targets and set goals. Therefore a portfolio can be associated with the gathering of records which can be used in the Personal Development Planning (PDP) process. The concept of Personal Development Records (PDRs) is closely related to the Higher Educa-tion Progress File, a recommendation found in the Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (Dearing, 1997) and extends beyond that, to incorporate artifacts which may evidence claims made in PDRs. Many institutions are choosing to implement PDP (and to encourage learners to manage their PDRs) through electronic means, often linking this to the term e-portfolio (Ward & Richardson, 2005) .

In 2008 The Academy made the bold decision to implement Mahara as its institutional e-Portfolio solution. It was a bold move as the software was, as yet untested, having only been released two months prior to it’s installation. Two main reasons for it’s adoption was it’s integration with Moodle and that it was Open Source i.e. free. Further to this, the Academy also made the commitment to contract e-Learn Design as consult-ants and to maintain both Mahara and Moodle installations, for a period of 12 months. This move was seen as a positive step towards fulfilling it’s Learning Resources and Student Support Strategy which states, as an objective for December 2009 to “implement Mahara as an Academy-wide platform for Personal Development Planning” . Four Moodle site-wide Administrators were found, including myself and a single Administrator for Mahara (myself), appropriate training was provided for Moodle.

Lessons learned on the JISC funded ISLE (Individualised Support for Learning through ePortfolio’s) Project found that ePortfolio’s cannot be introduced during the academic year. Greater success was found when you introduce them at induction. (ISLE). This Pilot scheme initially focused on employability skills amongst learners at Dumfries and Galloway College. Themed templates were created to provide structure to this process of PDP with categories which included: about me, My CV, my learning style, my interests and hobbies etc… All of which exist as default fields in Mahara, thus reducing the workload of tutors.

Encouraging students to personalize their learning spaces by deciding on layout as well as content can enthuse them to become more creative with their learning. The celebration of achievements can hence be more rewarding, with positive feedback from both peers and tutors acting as motivational devices. Improved retention levels were also recorded during the ISLE Project ranging from 30% to 100% improvement in some cases (JISC, 2008).

Results of an online survey I conducted, where I canvassed the opinion of 79 students and 11 staff members on ePortfolio’s, returned some revealing results. Out of the total number surveyed only 17% currently used an ePortfolio solution and from those, most (13 individuals) used Mahara. When asked the question, “Would you considering using one?” 53% said yes, with a further 36% stating that they “didn’t know” (see Chart 1). This shows that there is an interest worth considering and more promotion of Mahara needed.

Chart 1
Chart 1

When asked what they considered to be the single most important benefit of keeping an ePortfolio, the results were revealing (see Chart 2).

Chart 2

Chart 2

The results in Chart 2 clearly show that Employability would be a major contributing factor towards a learner engaging with an ePortfolio, with the organistaion of work being a major secondary concern. These statistics appear to align with the theory that both professional and vocational focus relies heavily on the development of praxis rather than knowledge alone. In this light, the ePortfolio serves as a developmental log in which to track ‘fitness of practice’. (Beetham & Sharpe, 2007).

In Art, we find ourselves confronted with a series of stimuli, such as a performance, a design, literary text or a piece of music. These artifacts  of learning more than often require our learners to ‘respond’ rather than to unravel an answer. These responses are often aesthetic in nature and require a degree of reflection that involves more than finding a formula which leads to a solution. (Beetham & Sharpe, 2007). Having the ability to present these stimuli as media; .mp4, jpeg, .doc or mp3 etc. provides the learner with a platform to host their evidence alongside their interpretations of it. It is hoped that the outcome would be that the learner has a greater understanding of the artifact.

“focus on creative activity is typical of the arts and that the methodologies (i.e. discussion) used to study the artefactual focus of these disciplines are to some degree themselves inspired by the methodologies employed in the creation of those artifacts.” (Beetham & Sharpe, 2007).

This form of reflective discourse based on the study of existing artifacts lends itself perfectly to the learning artist. The creation of new work commonly inspired by existing work. e.g. a learner uploads an .mp3 to their Mahara view then invites collaborators to listen to it, a discussion builds around the work from within a Mahara group forum. Changes are made to the work based on peer evaluation and the view is opened to the tutor for feedback and perhaps assessment.

The collection of this evidence could be a key driver to PDP being a key element to the UK Governments e-strategy (DfES, 2005). The Center for International ePortfolio Development is based in the University of Nottingham and is proof of the United Kingdoms commitment to research and development of this important learning tool.

To promote employability skills is as much about good learning experiences as it is about work placements or careers advice. (Bloxham & Boyd, 2007). They go on to state that more traditional methods of enhancing employability (entrepreneurship, careers guidance and PDP) do not necessarily contribute to the overall learning environment that is designed to foster employability, as they are often stand alone modules or lie outside of programme altogether. In this respect, there seems to be the need for a tool which draws all of these elements together and is still designed for learning. As the electronic portfolio is essentially a student centered solution, in which the learner has control over who and when their evidence is to be subject to academic scrutiny, then it would be fair to conclude that they can also choose when their work is open for employers to gauge their suitability for employment. Mahara can be viewed externally, allowing the learner to produce a media rich CV, which can be viewed by anyone of their choosing. Access to a particular view can also be time-limited or suspended at any point, by the learner.

In the online survey I asked how often those who completed it reflected  on their learning and whether these reflections were self motivated (non-assessed) or part of their course (assessed).  Chart 3 shows the frequency of reflection:

Chart 3

Chart 3

Now that the statistics were in place (and I was surprised at the amount of reflective practice stated) the task was then to ascertain why the learners were reflecting i.e. was it because they had to or was it because they felt it was a viable learning process?

Chart 5

Is this reflection….?

Chart 4

The findings here are even more surprising, it shows that learners are prepared to take ownership of their own learning where reflective practice is concerned. Thus going some way to prove that reflection is seen by a cross section of students in the Academy as an effective way to learn. Couple these statistics with those who outlined an interested in finding out more information about Mahara (85% of those surveyed wished to learn more, while 10% did not) and there is a clear case for further investigation.

To find out which methods were used in reflection I asked ‘how’ these learners reflected, giving a choice of the most common tools available. The results were mixed (Chart 6) and dependent on the learners definition of nomenclature e.g. a log book could be considered a journal by some. What is interesting is that 89% of those surveyed considered themselves to be computer literate which aligns closely to those interested in pursuing an interest in ePortfolio’s, yet most reflections seem to be recorded using analogue (paper-based) tools. One could conclude that this was due to the learners preference. Though when asked if the Academy should be doing more to promote Mahara, the response was that 58% thought so, 6% thought the Academy shouldn’t be promoting it and 35% didn’t know we even had one!

Chart 6

Chart 6

Mahara also has social networking functionality which has great potential to create both formal and non-formal learning environments. The ability to build communities of practice within a rich learning environment has obvious collaborative and knowledge sharing potential. This approach could open the door to both self and peer assessment models. These assessment skills are seen as valuable in developing lifelong learning skills such as self-evaluation, giving feedback, justifying a point and negotiation skills (Boud, 2000). Furthermore Stefani reminds us that “If assessment processes are intended to enhance student learning then it follows that students must be able to reflect on their current attainment” (Stefani 1998: 346, cited in Bloxham & Boyd, 2007). The skills required to develop objectivity (needed for self assessment) by reflecting on their own work, carves a path for the learner to direct their own work and thus making steps towards becoming autonomous learners. (Bloxham & Boyd, 2007). Peer feedback is often more accessible to the learner, being that it is not ‘emotionally loaded’ (Black et al, 2003:77) being that the language of peers is much easier for the student to understand, digest and evaluate.

When asked the question, “How often are you required to collaborate with others on your course?” (Chart 7), the results were as expected on programmes that involved both group and individual tuition. Only a 3% minority perceived that they did not collaborate at all, it should be a serious consideration to offer a support platform for these students to enter the fold and be able to reflect and collaborate with other learners. There is scope here for further development in cross curricula design and implementation, there would seem to be strong evidence that student aspirations stretch to include both peer feedback and a more collaborative environment in which to learn.

Chart 7

Chart 7

The final chart (Chart 8 ) was based around formative feedback and it’s perceived quantity available on individual courses. This question was purely subjective i.e. “What are your feelings on formative feedback?”, this was done intentionally as I wished to gauge student perception rather than objective fact. Feedback, or the amount of, is an academic responsibility and the student perception of this is dependent on the individuals requirements. A student who is struggling will percieve that they require more formative feedback, delivered in a timely manner. Race recommends that; “ if assessment is the engine that drives learning (Cowan cited in Race, 2007) then feedback is the oil that lubricates the cogs of understanding” (Race, 2007). Boud goes on to add that, “Assessment methods and requirements probably have a greater influence on how and what students learn than any other single factor. This influence may well be of greater importance than the impact of teaching materials.” (Boud, 1988).

I order to ascertain student perception of formative feedback provision within the Academy I asked, “What are your feelings on formative feedback?” with options depicting quantity rather than quality:

Chart 8

Chart 8

These statistics seem to suggest that there is a balance needing addressed in this area of learning. It has often been alleged that the Academy is heavy on summative assessment and light on the side of formative assessment. With these statistics in place it would seem that this is indeed the case. ePortfolio provision can address this issue head on, with 24 hours access to student evidence and reflection, more importantly it is the learner who opens their portfolio’s for scrutiny by tutors. This places the procurement of feedback firmly in their own hands.

Recommendations

The following are recommendations for the implementation of ePortfolio-based practice within the Royal Academy of Music & Drama, in order to address the findings in this investigation:

1. Staff training on the use of ePortfolio’s with particular emphasis on Mahara as a tool to enhance learning and employabilty within the student body.

2. The implementation of a robust framework for PDP in which ePortfolio provision can exist.

3. The introduction of ePortfolio-based learning at induction at the very latest.

4. Further investigation into allowing new and incoming 1st Year students to access and build ePortfolio’s on Mahara.

5. The introduction of a pilot scheme to encourage FE feeder courses to implement ePortfolio provision within their institutions as a recruitment driver.

6. The introduction of a pilot scheme to encourage employers to access final year students work as a recruitment driver.

Bibliography

Dearing, R (1997) Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (The Dearing Report) http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/

(accessed 18.06.09)

Developing a progress file for HE: Guidelines on HE progress files http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/progressfiles/guidelines/default.asp

(accessed 18.06.09)

Ward, R & Richardson, H (2005) Report to the JISC: Generic guidance for stakeholders implementing Personal Development Planning through e-portfolio systems http://www.erdee.org.uk/natsem/eport_seminar_report.pdf

(accessed 18.06.09)

ISLE: Individualised Support for Learning through ePortfolio’s, http://isle.paisely.ac.uk/default.aspx

(accessed 19.06.09)

Bloxman S & Boyd P, (2007) Developing Effective Assessment in Higher Education: A Practical Guide. Open University Press, Berkshire

Stefani, L.A.J. (1998) Assessment in partnership with learners, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(4): 339-50.

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B. and William, D. (2003) Assessment for Learning: Putting It into Practice. Maidenhead, Open University Press.

Beetham, H & Sharpe, R et al (2007) Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing and delivering e-learning. Oxon, Routledge

Boud, D (1988) Implementing Student Self-Assessment, HERDSA Green Guides Vol.5, University of New South Wales, Australia

Race, P (2007) The Lecturers Toolkit: A practical guide to assessment, learning and teaching, Oxon, Routledge

Boys, J & Ford, P (2008) The e-Revolution and Post Compulsory Education: Using e-Business models to deliver quality education. In association with JISC. Oxon, Routledge

Leave a Comment

Technogogy

May 12, 2009 at 9:42 pm (1st Year Experience, 2nd Year Experience, Flexible Delivery, PG-Cert, learning)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Over the past few months I have been playing around with the term ‘Technogogy’ to describe the hybridisation of Technology and Pedagogy. Sadly, I wasnt the first to coin this word as a quick Google search presented a number of sites using it. The term seems to have been first coined by Professor Rozhan M. Idrus at the 5th International Educational Technology Conference (with the theme, Distance Education) held in Sakarya, Turkey from 21-23 September 2005. At which he defined the term as:

“the transformative use of technology to foster learning.” (Idrus & McComas, 2005)

The premise of using internet technology (in its broadest sense) as a means for creating new knowledge has forced educators to re-think pedagogical approaches towards both how and when we learn.  No longer can we consider an institutional ‘classroom’ as the ‘walled garden’ of learning, a place where learning starts at 9am and finishes at 5pm. Furthermore, technology has allowed intellect to be amplified to a wider audience of external learners at a global level.

“Instruction begins when you, the teacher, learn from your learner. Put yourself in his place so that you may understand what he learns and the way he understands it.”

(Kierkegaard, cited in Idrus & McComa, 2005)

Learning cannot be enhanced or improved upon by technology itself, instead it should be redesigned with technology in mind. In much the same way as the  pencil or pen only evolved to support learning, so the computer should be considered in the same way. Technology can only enhance learning when it is grounded in established theory, the marriage of technology and pedagogy is perhaps best described by the term ‘technogogy’.

Idrus & McComa, (2005).Technogogy: Facilitating the Transformation of Learning. [PDF]. Available: http://www.ijcim.th.org/v14nSP1/pdf/p5.1-9-fin-58-keynote-Rozhan-%20Karen.pdf [Accessed: 2009]

1 Comment

RoME – The Rise of the Mobile in Education

March 14, 2009 at 5:14 pm (Flexible Delivery, learning)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I have just returned from a rare event in the world of educational technology; Apple have finally stuck their head above the parapet in the UK and co-hosted an event with Handheld Learning with the title The Rise of Mobility in Education.  It didn’t didn’t take me long to discover the mnemonic RoME in the title, which seemed a highly appropriate hash tag to use on Twitter, as I intended to tweet throughout the event. Scheduled for two hours and situated in Apple’s Executive Briefing Center in the heart of London I was fully aware of the rarity of such an event as Apple have been very quiet about the educational uses of their mobile devices. The iPod range being the most popular mobile device in history. Of course my interest was more vested than simply my usual passion for all things Apple, I have an iPod Touch pilot scheme running currently and this was a rare opportunity to be in the company of experts.

I just prayed that the event wasn’t going to be another product pitch or technical dissemination on why the iPod is the only gadget for education. I wanted to hear about pedagogy, learners and those who facilitate that learning, in fact, as I walked along Regent Street prior to the seminar I became resolute that if the event was pitched at the sales/technical level then I would ask determined questions about the latter. I had done a little preparation by familiarizing myself with the chapter on mobile and wireless learning (pg180-190) in Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age (Beetham, Sharpe et al, 2007). I created another mnemonic to summarize and aid me in remembering the basic characteristics of ubiquitous, mobile, learning technologies. It was;

Situated

Informal

Mobile

Personalized

Learning

Experience

Simple and effective.

As it turned out, I had no need for this invasive tactic as the lecture was purely embedded in educational paradigm.  Our speaker, Gordon Shukwit (Worldwide Director of I.T & Learning, Apple) introduced himself and was quickly off the mark. An explanation of how pedagogy, content and technology can overlap following the  TPACK model (see Figure 1) ensued. This model clearly shows how the three primary constituents of knowledge can form a complex interplay, creating hybrid knowledge where they intersect.

TPACK Model

Fig.1 TPACK Model

“Considering P and C together we get Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), Shulman’s idea of knowledge of pedagogy that is applicable to the teaching of specific content. Similarly, considering T and C taken together, we get Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), the knowledge of the relationship between technology and content. At the intersection of T and P, is Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), which emphasizes the existence, components and capabilities of various technologies as they are used in the settings of teaching and learning.

Finally, at the intersection of all three elements is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). True technology integration is understanding and negotiating the relationships between these three components of knowledge. A teacher capable of negotiating these relationships represents a form of expertise different from, and greater than, the knowledge of a disciplinary expert (say a mathematician or a historian), a technology expert (a computer scientist) and a pedagogical expert (an experienced educator). Effective technology integration for pedagogy around specific subject matter requires developing sensitivity to the dynamic, [transactional] relationship between all three components.” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006)

I had not come across this framework before and, for the first time, I recognised a model which I could adopt for the m-SM project and possibly a whole lot more besides. It was one of those moments in which you can feel a ’shift’ happen in your logic, perhaps this was that ‘defining moment’ I had been looking for? The framework itself is still at the early stage of development but has made it beyond theory into praxis, with several case studies available. The most informative of which being Brigham Young University’s Instructional Technology for ElEd and ECE course. On the course website can be found links to a number of trainee teacher’s reflections in which they have evidenced the use of the TPACK framework in their practice. The blogs can be found here.

Shukwit continued onto how students are required to be ‘librarians’ and understand classification systems in order to access content, drawing comparisons with folder structures and libraries. He asked the question, “How do students know when to delete a folder or portion of content?” and how multiple views of content can be ambiguous, demanding a need for content creators/organisors to be clear and succinct.

The next model presented was entitled the Technology Adoption Life Cycle and was based around Rubens’ SAMR model of ICT integration. The model is a progressive four tiered adoption scheme which begins with Substitution, followed respectively by Augmentation, Modification and finalizing in Redefinition. See Figure 2;

SAMR Model (Rubens, 2006)

SAMR Model (Rubens, 2006)

A explanatory podcast with audio by Ruben can be found here.

It is strange to think back to a time when using a spellchecker was considered cheating by a great number of institutions. These attitudes are to be expected and are often necessary for the innovators to control their innovations, they serve to open the idea to a greater degree of open scrutiny, challenge assumptions and eventually mold it into a more streamlined concept. This concept  can then become embedded in society.

“When Technology fails (it’s learners) it’s Technology itself that gets the blame, never the content or pedagogy.” (Shukwit, 2009)

The Digital Learning Environment (DLE) has been driven by an ‘us’ or shared ideology and three basic types of technology have been the vehicles for this i.e. tethered, portable and mobile. It would be timely to give definitions to these innovations:

Tethered: wired technologies such as desktop pc’s.

Portable: can be wired on wireless such as laptops and tablet pc’s.

Mobile: wireless and can ‘fit into your pocket’ such as mobile phones, PDAs and mp3 players.

Tethered and portable technologies are predominantly shared user content and collaborative devices where the emphasis is on networking. Mobile however carries it’s own unique learning qualities, where the emphasis is on ‘me’ and singling out students as individual learners with their own requirements and needs. Hence the emergence of Individual Learning Plans (ILP) in which the student takes control of their own learning e.g. downloading content ‘as and when’ they require it to be used ‘as and when’ they please. Teachers can now identify a learners specific requirements and ‘push’ content to that learners device, or the learner can ‘pull’ content from content rich servers.

Apple’s iPhone Enterprise Programme allows content to be delivered and received in this way. It bypasses the now standard iTunes (us) model and utilizes a fundamentally different and ‘me’ centered approach, where learners target or are targeted by educators for content pertinent to their specific learning needs.

The remainder of the seminar was presented around the iPhone Enterprise Programme and all of it’s merits, I have to admit that the proceedings became overly technical and resembled the instructions on the back of a MicroSoft product package (sorry Apple!) and I switched off. I did however manage to ask a couple of questions to which the answer’s were wholly unsatisfactory I felt. I asked whether or not ActiveSync was a robust system to which  ‘no comment’ was pretty much the reply, Shukwit was either unable to comment on another companies product or unwilling to. I had assumed that since Apple were engaged with this particular Microsoft product they would be wholly endorsing it as ’secure’, in this sense, I was suprised at the reply. The reason I required confirmation was not a sleight on MicroSoft, but more to assure my own institution (who are extremely reluctant to install AciveSync due to ‘horror’ stories they had heard) that ‘even Apple’ considered it safe enough to use. Now I am left with the feeling that it is either not secure or Apple simply couldn’t or wouldn’t confirm this for whatever reasons. Several other attendee’s tried to push the question farther nut where met with the same dance.

The other concern I raised was the lack of a quality camera and video capture on the iPhone/Touch making it less suitable for educational purposes than other similar mobile devices. The reply was similar to my previous attempt, I was requested to add it to the feedback sheet we were all given because “we like to listen”. On that note I left the seminar bursting with inspiration, by the time I had reached Regent Street the inspiration had dissolved into frustration. In that short journey in the lift I remembered what I faced back at RSAMD. ActiveSync was the key to unlocking a great resource in both educational and productivity terms, these rumors of it being vulnerable were stemming a potential groundswell of technological enhancement. Paranoia was the real enemy here, as well as an ignorance of how technology, content and pedagogy can be a trinity to be reckoned with.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record. 108(6), 1017-1054.

Ruben R. Puentedura. Transformation, Technology, and Education. (2006)

Shukwit, G. ( March 12th , 2009). in proceedings of the The Rise of the Mobile in Education seminar, London, UK.

6 Comments

The Position Statement

January 9, 2009 at 9:14 pm (PG-Cert, learning)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Alice

“if you don’t care where you’re going, it doesn’t make a difference which path you take.” Lewis Carrol, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865)

Positioning myself as a learner and lecturer has been much more difficult that I ever imagined. I have a real feeling of being lost in a sea of reflections. Ironically, I have returned to my reflective practice to seek out answers.

Where have I been?

I guess Alice may have had a better idea of which path to take if she had known where she was in the first place. I sympathise fully with her plight. I am journeying through a difficult cross-over period, leaving behind a jungle of uncertain practice where summative statements ruled over their formative cousins, tutorials were tired and laborious affairs and continual assessment ruled the roost. All of these processes were draining the learners and the facilitators of their learning, not to mention the scant resources at our disposal. Twenty four months ago seemed like a medieval era in RSAMD. If you asked me the difference between formative and summative I would have stared blankly back and answered, “Whats that got to do with Stage Management? I’m too busy getting this show on.”, or something similar.

So, where am I now?

In the rabbit hole, wondering whether or not to drink from the small bottle? I think I have passed that stage now, embracing the new and willing myself forward. I had begun implementing idea’s on learning and teaching that I had derived from bit’s and pieces of information that last years PG-Cert students were studying. It all seemed to either confirm my existing practice or offered more logical approaches that simply ‘made more sense’. Thanks to Phil Race and his Lecturers Toolkit , Howard Gardners Multiple Intelligences (the only two educational books of any academic credulity I owned) and a host of websites I began to piece together enough evidence to support some of my early idea’s.

I also longed to find a niche for myself within the Academy, something I was good at and nobody else was doing. I knew that it would be based around technology as it has always been a passion of mine. We had dabbled with eLearning in TPA sporadically, using Moodle as a repository for course content documents but not to any great effect. Other than that, I had struggled to get staff and students using Outlook more effectively. I knew that there was educational value to blogging as I had been keeping an online journal for several months and was constantly encountering educational bloggers wherever I went on the net. There seemed to be a rich vein of learning to be tapped into, though it wasn’t until I read John Cowans’ On Becoming an Innovative University Teacher, that the true, intrinsic value began to sink in.

Mobile media has always been of interest to me, I began subscribing to iTunes University educational podcasts, downloading them overnight and transferring them to my iPod in the morning. I would sit on the bus and be bamboozled by the amount of content available and consequently the mass of idea’s they produced. It was around then that I looked down at my device and thought that it would be wonderful if every student had one of these and learned like this i.e. whenever and wherever they were. Ubiquity began to be my mantra. I set out to see if this notion was possible.

I now have five iPod Touch units and four students trialling them for me. I have attended a three day conference in London on hand held learning which provided me with contacts and direct access to others working with similar issues and challenges. I left the conference buzzing with enthusiasm as it had confirmed that this may be the future of education.

I have drawn up monthly critical incident sheets to support regular tutorials with the four second year students, they have also been encouraged to reflect on their experiences with the devices through blogs. It is still in the early stages of development, the first few months being primarily for them to familiarise themselves with the devices. Early feedback has been encouraging as has the response to the scheme by colleagues.

As a result of my pilot students reflecting online about their experiences on the mobile project, they had already begun to network together via their blogs. This network has now grown to include several third year students and a couple of first years. My aim is to link all of these blogs together using RSS feeds. The students should feel as if they are entering an online learning community rather than reflecting in isolation. The long term aim is to have graduates who have become reflective practitioners continue to blog and feedback into the process, a spiraling model of group reflection.

Leave a Comment