Showing posts with label iatefl. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iatefl. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Prensky on Interactive Whiteboards, should teachers be 'allowed' to use them?

A comment I made on Twitter raised a small flurry of tweets recently. I had been watching the interview of Marc Prensky by Gavin Dudeney here: http://iatefl.britishcouncil.org/2009/sessions/62/q-marc-prensky following Prensky's plenary at the 2009 IATEFL conference. I was multitasking at the time but I came alert when Prensky said that we shouldn't let teachers use interactive whiteboards, they should be the province of the students. Wishing to share the link to this interesting interview with my network (in only 140 characters :-), I tweeted:

#iatefl from Prensky interview: http://tinyurl.com/iatefl-p... - Teachers should NOT use interactive whiteboards, their students should!carolrainbow@VanceS #iatefl IMHO An IWB being used well is an excellent teaching tool! Children should use as well but not have sole use :-)

To which I replied

@carolrainbow #iatefl I agree, but think value in Prensky's remark in reminding us to maximize active role of students in learning with IWBs
So what did Prensky actually say? This took me back to the original interview at the URL above. Prensky was saying that pedagogy needs to change in order for technology to be effective. He pointed out that technology tends to hinder the sage on the stage, whereas it facilitates the guide on the side. Therefore, he thought we need to focus more on the pedagogy in order to bring technology into classrooms. As long as teaching is rooted in the old paradigms, then technology will make slow inroads, but once the teaching changes, then technology will start to appear quickly. As it is, he said, if you have a teacher in front of a class all on laptops, and the teacher isn't engaging the students via their laptops, then the students will all be on Facebook.

At time: 16:15 in the video ...
Gavin asked him how he saw interactive whiteboards, as a help or hindrance, because they tend to push people into a certain pedagogy which is teacher fronted ...

Prensky replied:
"Personally I don't think we should let the teachers use the interactive whiteboards. I'm not saying we shouldn't have them, but if we have them, they should be the province of the students. The students should use them, the students should present with them, the students should figure out the most engaging and important ways to use them." He went on to say (and keeping in mind the context of his remarks) until their pedagogy changes, teachers will use them in the old paradigm, like a blackboard (e.g. show pictures, show videos from YouTube, make a PowerPoint).

This got me thinking of another time I was multi-tasking on my feet, back in 1985, when I wandered into a plenary at the TESOL conference in New York city, just in time to hear Stephen Kraschen suggest to the thousands of listeners present in the huge hall that "teachers erase all their current language teaching software disks and use them instead for wordprocessing" (my memory was jogged by a Google search which led me to Richard Young's CALICO Journal article Vol 5, No. 3 (March 1988), Computer-Assisted Language Learning Conversations: Negotiating an Outcome, p.65: https://www.calico.org/a-380-ComputerAssisted%20Language%20Learning%20Conversations%20Negotiating%20an%20Outcome.html). As you can imagine, this remark was taken way too literally, with some jumping to the extreme conclusion that no CALL software was worth the mylar it was written on.

Kraschen has since been understood to have over-reached himself with his notions of comprehensible input, the idea of i+1, which was an excellent idea, and one that makes a lot of practical sense, but which was on examination found to have no actual research base (so?? it favorably guided the practice of quite a lot of teachers nevertheless!). Another such notion that had also got its author in difficulties was Chomsky's suggestion that there was a black box in our brains where language processing took place. Many autopsies later, when no such box could be found, this notion was raised by Chomsky's detractors, who had already carried the great man's ideas into transformational grammars and down essentially non-communicative garden paths.

Prensky too could fall victim to the great success of his notion of digital natives and digital immigrants. Some are now questioning whether people actually break down into such groups, leading Gavin to suggest in his interview that the native/immigrant distinction might be reaching its 'shelf-life'.

But here again, these are all marvelous notions, and whether or not they stand to scrutiny under close inspection, they all get us thinking. Whether they were literally correct or not is beside the point, I think. Prensky's role as a change agent is to move us all along the path of paradigm shift. For that to happen, for the pedagogy to change as he says it needs to, teachers have to change their practice, and for this to happen they have to reflect and internalize the many discreet shifts that will lead them toward some major revelation that invokes the change.

This then is one great affordance of our blog and Twitter network, a medium through which we can keep these ideas percolating, and move more and more of us over the chasm that will allow all teachers to become effective interactive whiteboard users, with fully engaged students.

Are you there yet? Are we there yet? What is holding us back? Let's think about it ...

Tuesday, July 3, 2007

The Multiliterate Autonomous Learner: Teacher attitudes and the inculcation of strategies for lifelong learning

For April 2008 I have been invited to present (perhaps online) as part of the "Autonomy and the language classroom: opening a can of worms!" project for the IATEFL/LASIG: Learner Autonomy Special Interest Group's lead-up to the Exeter IATEFL conference. See the Can of Worms link at: http://learnerautonomy.org/wormsindex.html
and mention of me as 'keeper' of the Technology worm here: http://learnerautonomy.org/wormsmay2007.html.

This article has since been published in the IATEFL LASIG Independence, Winter 2007 (Issue 42) - some articles are previewed here: http://www.learnerautonomy.org/articles.html. My article appears here: http://www.learnerautonomy.org/VanceStevens.pdf; no it doesn't, not any longer - had to go to the Wayback Machine to find it and bring it home, here:
http://www.vancestevens.com/papers/archive/VanceStevens_multiliterateAutonomousLearner.pdf


This article briefly addresses the role of technology in learner autonomy, with focus in particular on the influence of teacher attitudes towards technology as it might impact autonomy in the newer generations of learners.

Expert systems and learning networks

The promise of CALL or computer-assisted language learning has from its inception been to somehow set learners on a path of independent learning. The model for doing this has changed drastically over the years. Stephen Downes characterized the evolution of this model in the talk he gave at WiAOC 2007 <http://wiaoc.org> and <http://webheadsinaction.org>, entitled Personal Learning the Web 2.0 Way.

Reduced to its essential dichotomy, the earlier models were algorithmic whereas more recent ones have become increasingly connectionist. Downes harked back to the notion of expert systems, the idea that computers could somehow be made to embody a Socratic dialog with learners, or program them into mastery of certain subject matter (e.g. Programmed Instruction, Mastery Learning). 

Various instantiations of algorithmic instructional models have so far failed to produce a credibly expert system. This is because, in Downes's view, knowledge does not derive from algorithmic processes but from connectionist ones. That is, apart from the most discrete learning goals (how to perform long division for example) knowledge is not linearly derived in series of if/then junctures but is pattern driven, as embodied in networks. In other words, instances of knowledge reside at nodes which online comprise distributed learning networks, and to become knowledgeable is more a matter of developing competencies for accessing those nodes and systematizing the information available there than of mechanically following algorithms down pre-scribed paths, which is what an expert system by definition has us do. 

Siemens (2005 as but one example) makes similar observations in his writings on connectivism, where he asserts that the network itself is more important than the meaning it contains: "Those theorists most closely aligned with the new landscape are also those who most readily acknowledge that the process is one of coming to know, rather than of knowing."

And this dichotomy lies at the heart of autonomy for a new age of learners. If autonomous learning is akin to teaching people how to fish (as opposed to fostering dependencies on feeding behaviors) then a cutting edge knowledge of how one fishes for information in distributed learning networks (e.g. on the Internet) is crucial to staying afloat and healthily sustained in the quest for autonomy in any kind of learning, not just language learning. Fishing for information in this day and age entails, among other multiliteracy skills, a working knowledge of syndication (RSS), aggregation, tagging, and folksonomies (the taxonomy of tagging), and using these in conjunction with knowledge derived from discoveries percolated through communities of practice. Therefore a working knowledge of tools facilitating contact and collaboration within distributed learning networks is paramount, as described for example in a recent article by Dieu and Stevens (2007).
 
Multiliteracies and Paradigm Shift

As these concepts are relatively recent developments in a fast-changing world of information surfeit and dissemination, where notions of multiliteracies and transliteracies are emerging to characterize the competencies required for effectively coping and communicating in the 21st century, many teachers in the digital immigrant generation (Prensky, 2001) are simply not keeping up. Many teachers still conceptualize technology as working along the lines of an expert system, something that can be purchased shrink wrapped and which students can be plugged into for learning outcomes to be realized. This may work in some cases for short-term learning goals but not as a strategy of great value towards attaining competencies directed at lifelong learning.

This is but one of the many paradigm shifts that teachers in particular are having to grapple with as we head inexorably into the 21st century. I say teachers in particular because there are so many of us who are of the age where we can recall when using computers to develop learning algorithms was state of the art, before Internet became ubiquitous. Now that Internet is for the fortunate few 'always on' the greatest potentials for technology in learning are rapidly shifting to connectionist models. The challenge for teachers, especially those whose use of technology has lagged behind latest developments, is being able to switch mindsets away from the expectation that computers should provide solutions to problems in education in algorithmic ways.

The expert model is intuitively understood by a generation brought up on western scientific logic, and such logic does not readily suggest nor accept network solutions. To Cartesian-logical minds, network solutions might appear counter-intuitive until experienced. How, for example, can a wiki work unregulated and 'bottom up' to create an encyclopedia that is in many ways superior to the traditional 'top down' authoritatively published ones. Yet wikis and other social networking tools have had startling impacts on constructivist learning when applied appropriately in educational contexts. Their benefit to learning, says Downes, is beyond articulation or description, but is rather, ineffable.

Who are the new learners?

Meanwhile, a younger generation of learners is emerging which is increasingly liberated from 20th century mindsets. Lawrence Lessig (2006) created a buzz recently when he contrasted the read-write 21st century with the read-only 20th. A similar notion was conveyed in Time Magazine's declaring You as being the person of the year (Grossman, 2006). Lessig's contention is that the 20th century was a pendulum swing toward concentrating power in the hands of the few who controlled media whereas the new century is seeing the pendulum swing back to power being restored to the voices of the many who have taken back control of the new media. This is the context in which today's learners are experiencing social networking as a matter of course. They are the digital natives, the twitch generation (Prensky, 1998), the ones who are in increasing numbers being born into households where Internet is as common as TV was to the current generation of teachers. The expectations of these digital natives is such that, when confronted with last-generation mindsets, another of Prensky's mantras might apply: enrage me or engage me! (2005). Or worse, antipathy - teachers who fail to adapt could be regarded as irrelevant.
Or even worse, detrimental. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that teachers who do not model appropriate uses of technology predispose their students to avoid technology in turn, whereas teachers who use technology in their classes positively influence their students to experiment with technology in finding solutions requiring them to apply their skills as autonomous learners and problem-solvers.
 
One bit of support for that is from Cheri Toledo's (2007) presentation at the recent Future of Education online conference. Kathy Clesson (as heard on the recording) said that she found in her district that students whose teachers used CMS's and Web 2.0 tools in their teaching tended to be the ones whose students became most comfortable with using technology in their ongoing teacher training whereas an avoidance by teachers of technology tended to harbor concomitant discomfort and avoidance in their students, who did not feel that technology was very relevant to their work.


Relating this to learner autonomy

Autonomous does not mean isolated or 'by oneself' - an autonomous learner is one who self-starts him/herself in the direction of a learning strategy in which, these days, a learning community might figure highly. Therefore learning strategies leading to community and network building might be productive in producing autonomous learners, some of whom would also work as teachers. It stands to reason that one who prepares others to be lifelong learners should him or herself be one.

We can find models of behaviors we would like to impart (to students) in teachers who take advantage of as many learning opportunities as are available in their distributed learning networks which they nurture and explore (i.e. are themselves autonomous vs. those who complain of too few opportunities for professional development when in fact such opportunities abound from no matter where in the world we are, online, which suggests that such teachers are either working under critical duress or are themselves not particularly autonomous).

Teachers who explore and exploit the many opportunities for interaction with peers in the online environment are much more likely to adapt the techniques they themselves use for professional development in their own classes and thereby MODEL these practices for students. As Downes notes in slide 22 of the presentation that has sounded the tonic chord for this article, "To teach is to model and to demonstrate. To learn is to practice and reflect."

It is possible to conclude that teachers who practice autonomy in their own professional development formulate heuristics for harvesting knowledge within their personal learning spaces, and thus stand a better chance of inculcating the desired behaviors in their students, thus increasing the likelihood of producing potentially autonomous and lifelong learners. But it is a percolative process. In order to teach (to model and demonstrate) one must constantly learn and re-learn, and this means that one must practice the behaviors one models (how else to model them?) and reflect on the ramifications of those behaviors, as we do in writing and reading this article, from each of our nodes connected to one another through our interlaced learning networks.

References

Dieu, Barbara, and Vance Stevens. (2007), Pedagogical affordances of syndication, aggregation, and mash-up of content on the Web. TESL-EJ, Volume 11, Number 1. Retrieved July 3, 2007 from: http://tesl-ej.org/ej41/int.html.
Grossman, Lev. (2006). Time's Person of the Year. Time Magazine, Dec. 13, 2006. Retrieved July 3, 2007 from: http://tinyurl.com/3chjkb.
Lessig, Lawrence. (2006). The Read-Write Society, a keynote given 15 September 2006 at the Wizards of OS4 conference, http://www.wizards-of-os.org/programm/panels/authorship_amp_culture/keynote_the_read_write_society.html; recording retrieved June 30, 2007 from: http://phalacrocorax.informatik.hu-berlin.de/fr/09_20h_ReadWriteSociety.mp4.
Prensky, M. (1998). Twitch speed: Reaching younger workers who think differently. Across the Board, January. Retrieved July 3, 2007 from: http://www.twitchspeed.com/site/article.html.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon 9, 5. Retrieved July 3, 2007 from: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf#search=%22prensky%22digital%20native%22%22.
Prensky, M. (2005). "Engage me or enrage me," What today's learners demand. Retrieved July 3, 2007 from: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0553.pdf.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: Learning as network-creation. Retrieved July 3, 2007 from: http://www.learningcircuits.org/2005/nov2005/seimens.htm.
Stevens, Vance. (2006). Revisiting multiliteracies in collaborative learning environments: Impact on teacher professional development. TESL-EJ, Volume 10, Number 2. Retrieved July 3, 2007 from: http://www.tesl-ej.org/ej38/int.html.
Toledo, Cheri. (2007). The Future of Teacher Education: Herding Cats and Chasing Targets. Presentation given at the Future of Education online conference. Retrieved July 3, 2007 from: http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/foe-2007/Cheri_Toledo/.

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

The Multiliterate Autonomous Learner, and Teachers' attitudes influencing students' openness to technology (prequel)

The article derived from this prequel has been blogged here:
http://advanceducation.blogspot.com/2007/07/multiliterate-autonomous-learner.html

Comments welcome!

I've somehow taken on the job of Keeper of the Worm, the Technology Worm as part of the "Autonomy and the language classroom: opening a can of worms!" project for the IATEFL/LASIG: Learner Autonomy Special Interest Group's lead-up to the Exeter IATEFL conference. See the Can of Worms link at: http://learnerautonomy.org/wormsindex.html and mention of me as 'keeper' of the Technology worm here: http://learnerautonomy.org/wormsmay2007.html. In conjunction with this I have been invited to present (perhaps online) at the conference in Exeter in April 2008. I'm supposed to produce a paper on this by the end of June.

In correspondence today with Jo Mynard (she's the one gave me the worm) I got to thinking what I might write about this. Autonomous does not mean isolated or 'by oneself' - an autonomous learner is one who self starts him/herself in the direction of a learning strategy in which these days a learning community might figure highly. Therefore leaning strategies leading to community and network building might be productive in producing both autonomous teachers and learners.

I think we can find models of behaviours we would like to impart in teachers who take advantage of as many learning opportunities as are available in their distributed learning networks which they nurture and explore (i.e. are themselves autonomous vs. those who whinge about opportunities for professional development not being laid on for them - not particularly autonomous; but I'll try to avoid the negative when I produce the paper). These teachers MODEL in turn for students, and stand a better chance of inculcating the desired behaviour.

I chanced on a strong bit of support for that in a podcast I happened to be listening to on my way to work this morning. It was Cheri Toledo's presentation at the FOE conference that just ended: The presentation can be viewed and heard here: http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/foe-2007/Cheri_Toledo/ (nice slides, there's a trend toward artsy in slides these days; hard for some of us to keep up).

The audio support I had in mind was actually a sound bite from one of her guest voices, Kathy Clessen (heard on the recording; apologies for spelling) to the effect that she found in her district that students whose teachers used CMS's and Web 2.0 tools in their teaching tended to be the ones whose students became most comfortable with using technology in their ongoing teacher training whereas an avoidance by teachers of technology tended to harbor concomitant discomfort and avoidance in student teachers.

I liked the sound bite and took the liberty of mashing it up (cut out some audio here and there). I have stored it here:

http://webheadslink.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/Cheri_Toledo_cathy_c

In addition I have embedded the recording in Web players in two places on the Internet:

Sunday, April 29, 2007

Will online facilities at conferences kill off smaller, more localized events where people are within travelling distance of the venue?

I hope I can say in a nice way that I disagree that online components to conferences will kill off localized events. I think the opposite, that online access to any professional development opportunity enhances it for everyone involved. I have given many presentations at normally closed on-site venues where the participants have said afterwards that the demonstration of what it was possible to do online was eye opening for them. So at the site itself, appropriate techniques for interaction are modeled, and the people at the on-site location can see first hand how to set up and use the technologies that can bring the world into their classrooms.

It could be argued that the opportunity to learn more about how to do something truly useful like that would draw people to conferences. People might conceivably in the very near future become less and less interested in conferences where this kind of thing doesn't happen.

People in the audience ought to be able to choose their preferred modality, not have things set up so that coming to the site was the only option for them. Constructing learning environments so that users have choices according to individual differences and learning styles is a major premise of individualized learning which ought to underpin what appears in an independent learning center as well as in real-life professional development. I have argued elsewhere that online participants might benefit more from such occasions from a purely technical point of view by having to DO what was talked about in presentations (about technology) rather than just sitting passively, nodding, taking notes, and then returning to work in the same old way.

I have heard it argued that sitting at home online is isolating and that people participating in conferences in this way are missing out on all the social interaction. Again, as someone with over a decade of experience working with people online, I find the opposite to be true. If all your interactions with people you admire in your profession are done face to face on those rare occasions you are able to coincide in the same physical space, then I hope you do savor the moment. Online, you can interact with such people more or less continually. You find that personalities and intellects are much more accessible over time in this mode, that people get to know one another better and more deeply online, and that when face to face meetings do occur, the benefits of having laid all that groundwork are immediately apparent. Ask anyone who has met an online professional acquaintance at long last – in most cases, it’s a milestone in a friendship that has already formed.

I’m not arguing against the importance of attending live conferences. I go to several in person every year and I find that they feed an important aspect of my professional development. But online venues multiply such opportunities, and it is crucial that we share and share alike in this regard – if I benefit online from a conference given in Minsk or Fujairah then I should give my colleagues in Minsk and Fujairah a chance to benefit in kind when I make my presentation, even at my local conference.

As someone with experience in both face to face and virtual events, I can speak with familiarity and some authority on each. But I find that many people with whom I discuss the benefits of interjecting more opportunities for online interaction in areas that are normally face to face (ranging from conferences to meetings at work) are not particularly experienced in online interaction, might try it once, decide they don’t care for it, and never really move cross that threshold where the benefits start to become self-evident.

That is one great contribution of the Aberdeen IATEFL conference I think, that it seems to have been a mostly positive experience for all concerned, and has got people a few steps closer to that all important threshold. I’m trying here to encourage continued movement to the edge, and counter tendencies toward thinking that, ok, it worked there, but it wouldn’t work here. There are many reasons why the example of Aberdeen, and so many others as well which I could get into if anyone is interested, can and absolutely SHOULD be pursued locally - and thanks to the Internet, globally in the same fell swoop.

Smiles and kind regards,

Vance