Recently I blogged a response to George Siemens' weariness of the concept of "Pedagogy first" and it made me ponder what I phrases feel weary of when I hear them. I find that these are particularly prolific in conference presentations, educational developer/learning technologist meetings and (increasingly) job interviews. Following George's example I'm going to endeavour that this doesn't become a rant but considers the "what lies beneath" of the hackneyed phrases.
1. "I'm looking forward to the day we can drop the 'e' and just talk about learning" usually followed by a mexican wave of nods around the room (and a sigh from me). To me this is a "so what" sort of comment, of course I recognise the sub-text of not treating e-learning as a novelty or needing special attention, but I personally think it is interesting enough to generate a rich seam of conversation in its own right - just before it starts to become ordinary something new and exciting come along to refresh thinking. This is not restricted to e-learning, I've also heard "let's stop talking about assessment/teaching/student support/transition and just talk about learning." Of course everything is a subset of learning but do we really want to just describe everything with one word and start every conversation with totality? Will that really advance our cause? Is it a good measure of impact? What's wrong with using language to shine a spotlight?
2. "technology is just another tool in the academic's toolkit that they may or maynot choose to use and I'm OK with that" this is usually an ed dev/learn tech comment and makes me want to ask a whole host of follow up questions - is technology one tool? in this day and age is there a legitimate opt out? in what circumstances might they choose not to use anything at all? and is it really OK to be OK with it? - where are the parallels? - would a librarian declare the same level of comfort if an academic opted out of using any information resources? I realise that I am going against conventional wisdom here, but I don't subscribe to the toolkit perspective. I think about living, learning, working in a digital age (in a world immersed in technology), I think about authenticity to discipline and/or professions, I think about the rich learning opportunities technology can offer and then I wonder in what context is it [yawn yawn] "just another tool"?
3. "technology is fine, but it isn't appropriate within my subject/discipline" obviously an academic comment (well, you know, ed dev/learn tech don't have the monopoly on hackney). I don't really have much to add to this one - its ??? is absolutely explicit. Is there really a subject or discipline in which learning cannot be enriched by thoughtful application of technology or that doesn't have a real world technology component worth embedding? If there is I haven't come across it yet, but if others have, please share...or (I like a challenge) suggest one and let's see if we can't prove/disprove this once and for all.
New and emerging hackneyed.... well "new and emerging" is probably a good candidate in itself, others might include "e-portfolios are the true personalised learning environments", "wikipedia is damaging students' ability to research", "we need to take learning to where the students are, Facebook, MySpace etc". The recent ELI Spring Focus Session with a focus on authenticity through "learning by doing or learning by thinking like.." offered a range of candidates for the coming soon "hackneys" (I even found myself trotting out a refreshed version of 1 above for which I am eternally sorry - "stop talking about them as students but as engineers, psychologists, nurses etc" - oh dear, oh dear) but for now, for the new and emerging ones, I'm not going to fret they are afterall not established yet and as long as they still offer opportunities for conversations and encourage everyone (whatever their role) to re-consider their practice to be more student-focused then I'll stick behind them for a while.
Your comments are most welcome on any of the above together with, if you wish, suggestions for phrases to put in the "Hackneyed Hall of Yawn"
Showing posts with label learning technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label learning technology. Show all posts
Friday, 21 March 2008
Sunday, 16 March 2008
Pedagogy first? Whatever....and yes! whenever
Following a recent 140 character chat, George Siemens seems to have finally tired of the platitude "pedagogy first" (although in fairness 140 characters do lend themselves to platitudes). Also (and again to be fair, he didn't have a problem with using platitudes at all but the content of this particular one) To see what he thought check out his blog post Pedagogy first? Whatever
I admit I felt a bit attacked by the post, as I am firmly in the "pedagogy first" camp and had declared such in one of my 140 characters, but mostly I welcomed the opportunity to have the discussion and debate. But where to engage in the debate - as a tweet (bound to be over simple - 1-4-0-issue), as a comment on his blog (right location but moderated, and reluctant to start with a negative when I more frequently agree with his posts than disagree - hmmm), on my own blog (why? well why not? and mostly cos this is where I need to think aloud). So my comment submitted to his blog is produced below too, would welcome comments of others on this.
An interesting post. I agree with much more of it than I disagree but I would still put forward a case to support the notion of "pedagogy first" or at the very least "pedagogy at all". Of course there is a lot more going on in any curriculum design/development decision than pedagogy alone...but hopefully it is in the mix and preferably at the begining of the mix. There are lots of other factors and context is as good a word for it as anything, it needs to be a holistic decision, and there are a number of instances where ease, efficiency, flexibility, convenience, skill levels are prevailing factors and that's fine but what a shame to miss an opportunity to discuss pedagogy in the planning. Seven or eight years ago there was lots of talk about "pedagogy by stealth" around learning technologies - by enthusing staff about technology it was an opportunity to discuss and explore their curriculum design, pedagogical models and, often most important of all, assessment strategies. With early adopters and technology enthusiasts (the ones for example likely to give teaching in SL a go) this is less of an issue, but for a lot of staff they look for the "pedagogy first" conversation to reassure them that this isn't about using students as guinea pigs, having their best interests at heart (and yes instructional designers use it exactly as you suggest - as some kind of entry fee - "please let me talk to you, I'm not just going to push technology at you like a travelling salesman"). Also in my experience, often the "pedagogy first" conversations are rarely about sticking with what we know or are comfortable with, technology opens doors to new pedagogical opportunities and some of the best conversations start with the staff member declaring "I can't use technology, it doesn't fit with my own pedagogical model"...
I absolutely agree that there are lot more factors than pedagogy when deciding what technology to use and they can be frustratingly chicken and egg decisions - for example if we want our students to use SL then we have to offer SL access on-campus (as a point of principle) and of course the technical people who need to be convinced that it is worth their while to do the work (and around we go). On the other hand, we have a small number staff who love a tool which is pedagogically interesting but can be confusing to students and expensive to administer. The decisions here are certainly not "pedagogy first". How about I propose a complementary consideration - it may not be pedagogy first in all decisions about what technology to use, but it ought to be pedagogy first when considering how technology is applied to a learning context but not about the pedagogical safezone about pedagogic opportunity. We need to think bigger and when there are opportunities for students to learn better we should not confine ourselves to learning differently.
[Then I spent some time contemplating the whole moderated comment approach to blog admin - and concluding that is not really my bag.]
I admit I felt a bit attacked by the post, as I am firmly in the "pedagogy first" camp and had declared such in one of my 140 characters, but mostly I welcomed the opportunity to have the discussion and debate. But where to engage in the debate - as a tweet (bound to be over simple - 1-4-0-issue), as a comment on his blog (right location but moderated, and reluctant to start with a negative when I more frequently agree with his posts than disagree - hmmm), on my own blog (why? well why not? and mostly cos this is where I need to think aloud). So my comment submitted to his blog is produced below too, would welcome comments of others on this.
An interesting post. I agree with much more of it than I disagree but I would still put forward a case to support the notion of "pedagogy first" or at the very least "pedagogy at all". Of course there is a lot more going on in any curriculum design/development decision than pedagogy alone...but hopefully it is in the mix and preferably at the begining of the mix. There are lots of other factors and context is as good a word for it as anything, it needs to be a holistic decision, and there are a number of instances where ease, efficiency, flexibility, convenience, skill levels are prevailing factors and that's fine but what a shame to miss an opportunity to discuss pedagogy in the planning. Seven or eight years ago there was lots of talk about "pedagogy by stealth" around learning technologies - by enthusing staff about technology it was an opportunity to discuss and explore their curriculum design, pedagogical models and, often most important of all, assessment strategies. With early adopters and technology enthusiasts (the ones for example likely to give teaching in SL a go) this is less of an issue, but for a lot of staff they look for the "pedagogy first" conversation to reassure them that this isn't about using students as guinea pigs, having their best interests at heart (and yes instructional designers use it exactly as you suggest - as some kind of entry fee - "please let me talk to you, I'm not just going to push technology at you like a travelling salesman"). Also in my experience, often the "pedagogy first" conversations are rarely about sticking with what we know or are comfortable with, technology opens doors to new pedagogical opportunities and some of the best conversations start with the staff member declaring "I can't use technology, it doesn't fit with my own pedagogical model"...
I absolutely agree that there are lot more factors than pedagogy when deciding what technology to use and they can be frustratingly chicken and egg decisions - for example if we want our students to use SL then we have to offer SL access on-campus (as a point of principle) and of course the technical people who need to be convinced that it is worth their while to do the work (and around we go). On the other hand, we have a small number staff who love a tool which is pedagogically interesting but can be confusing to students and expensive to administer. The decisions here are certainly not "pedagogy first". How about I propose a complementary consideration - it may not be pedagogy first in all decisions about what technology to use, but it ought to be pedagogy first when considering how technology is applied to a learning context but not about the pedagogical safezone about pedagogic opportunity. We need to think bigger and when there are opportunities for students to learn better we should not confine ourselves to learning differently.
[Then I spent some time contemplating the whole moderated comment approach to blog admin - and concluding that is not really my bag.]
Sunday, 24 February 2008
Digital natives and immigrants - lost in translation (part 2)
The earlier post unpacked (somewhat) the nature of immigrance and "fit" but there is another premise of digital immigrancy that his helpful to consider, that being "instinct and development". As a non-native speaker, the first step to any dialogue is to work it out in our native language and then translate it to the required language. It is the skill of translation that is both the saviour and the curse of the digital immigrant. Having those quick translation skills are helpful for anyone in a changing world. For example in the UK those who were children between the ages of 5 and 10 in the early 70s might be considered the most cross-fluent between Imperial and decimal measurements; any older and they had to unlearn, any younger and the imperial is “foreign”, those in the middle “use whichever side of the ruler comes to mind” and flip between the two without much thought. This attitude to change can be liberating and means that in many ways, that generation have embraced their translation heritage to move between the old and the new (age in 2007 of this group of translators approx 35–45). However, with this form of translation, the initial process of “work it out in your own language first” can be a problem. We think:
“I want students to demonstrate their knowledge on this topic”
“how would I usually do this? – write a 3,000 word essay”
“how shall I do it using the technology? – word process and submit online a 3,000 word essay”
(oh dear!)
Our thought processes graft on the technology to the activity – the “traditional plus technology” approach to curriculum design. So where is the problem? When conversing with the digital natives they don’t have a frame of reference for the traditional (ie the equivalent of not understanding that French nouns have genders or that German verbs go at the end) so the translation seems awkward.
“you want me to demonstrate what I know about a topic – let me build a webpage, make a video, or better still, if you want to know what I think – check out my blog”
Linguists aspire to (and develop skills in how to) think in their non-native language and it is this equivalent skill that we need to promote in the use of learning technology.
“I want students to demonstrate their knowledge on this topic”
“how would I usually do this? – write a 3,000 word essay”
“how shall I do it using the technology? – word process and submit online a 3,000 word essay”
(oh dear!)
Our thought processes graft on the technology to the activity – the “traditional plus technology” approach to curriculum design. So where is the problem? When conversing with the digital natives they don’t have a frame of reference for the traditional (ie the equivalent of not understanding that French nouns have genders or that German verbs go at the end) so the translation seems awkward.
“you want me to demonstrate what I know about a topic – let me build a webpage, make a video, or better still, if you want to know what I think – check out my blog”
Linguists aspire to (and develop skills in how to) think in their non-native language and it is this equivalent skill that we need to promote in the use of learning technology.
Digital natives and immigrants - lost in translation (part 1)
The starting point for many discussions around learning in the digital age begins with the question: Are you a digital native or a digital immigrant? But, be warned, your response can then determine the direction of your conversation, with the inquirer making a host of assumptions about who you are, what you know and what you think. Whilst some question the determinist view of this form of classification, it can be useful in framing how to consider the development of learning technologies and student engagement with these. So let’s start with the question, explore what this means and then consider so alternative perspectives:
Are you a digital native or a digital immigrant?
The question should be easy to answer – if you were born after 1980 (in the US) or 1984 (in Europe) you are a digital native – everybody else is an immigrant. Digital natives are considered to have been born into a digital world and they have no knowledge of a world without technology.
Prensky terms from his 2001 article Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants has become a useful nomclamenture to quickly articulate the points made. However a number of writers have challenge the simple dichotomy that his classification suggests, whether it is backed up with evidence of greater usage of technology and importantly for us, whether it really changes the way people learn.
It is definitely helpful to review the primary source paper, and it is clear from the paper that there is more in the sub-text about generational divide and willingness to change, than specifics of “number of hours using technology”. It provides a different perspective on “the trouble with the kids today, with their hair and their clothes”. In particular the points he, as a digital immigrant, makes about the thickness of accents:
“There are hundreds of examples of the digital immigrant accent. They include printing out your email (or having you secretary print it out for you – an even “thicker” accent); needing to print out a document written on the computer in order to edit it (rather than just editing on the screen); and bringing people physically into your office to see an interesting web site (rather than just sending them the URL)…..My own favourite is the “Did you get my email?” phone call.”
The paper explores the impact of this action on the generational divide and goes on to outline how education might be different but there is more to the immigration analogy than simply the accent. It speaks more to the immigrants place in the world and ways of thinking.
He suggests that the immigrant community, by their nature, are deemed to declare: “I am not comfortable in this place”. Let’s consider the immigration analogy a little further, by exploring some themes around English ex-pat community in Spain (and other Mediterranean countries) as a parallel “immigration”. There is no single immigrant community or attitudinal set, but rather sub-sets, let's explore these and their learning technology equivalents:
Spain: “I like the climate, but I want to live in a mini-England with sun”
Learning Technology: “I like the convenience of technology for booking holidays, banking, news etc but I want to teach they way I always have”
Spain: “I love living in Spain, but I haven’t bothered to learn the language, I get my son/daughter to deal with all the Spanish things”
Learning Technology: “I like being associated with a technology-rich course, but I rely on younger members of the teaching team to do it.”
Spain: “I can’t really speak the language, but I have a few stock phrases I can use to get by in shops”
Learning Technology: “I don’t understand it, but I have my list of eight steps to upload my teaching material and I can email if I need to”
Spain: “I speak great Spanish! And the locals are so grateful when I try” (think policeman in ‘Allo ‘Allo)
Learning Technology: “I use as much technology as I can, and the students are so grateful I ‘deliver’ in this way”
Spain: “I like Spain, I like everything about it, I have to learn the language to really live here, to get the most out of it”
Learning Technology: “Don’t give me this digital immigrant nonsense, I live in the digital age too, if I want to use technology and it makes learning better – I will!”
OK, so that is the “foreign land” perspective and whilst many will continue to assert that learning is learning and will never change, and that “all this is fine, but not in my subject”, many digital natives leave the higher education classroom with a mashed-up, mp3 speed-enhanced, flickr-blog impression that the first line of L.P. Hartley’s (1953) novel The Go-between is speaking directly to them - the past really is a foreign country, and they really do do things differently there...
Are you a digital native or a digital immigrant?
The question should be easy to answer – if you were born after 1980 (in the US) or 1984 (in Europe) you are a digital native – everybody else is an immigrant. Digital natives are considered to have been born into a digital world and they have no knowledge of a world without technology.
Prensky terms from his 2001 article Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants has become a useful nomclamenture to quickly articulate the points made. However a number of writers have challenge the simple dichotomy that his classification suggests, whether it is backed up with evidence of greater usage of technology and importantly for us, whether it really changes the way people learn.
It is definitely helpful to review the primary source paper, and it is clear from the paper that there is more in the sub-text about generational divide and willingness to change, than specifics of “number of hours using technology”. It provides a different perspective on “the trouble with the kids today, with their hair and their clothes”. In particular the points he, as a digital immigrant, makes about the thickness of accents:
“There are hundreds of examples of the digital immigrant accent. They include printing out your email (or having you secretary print it out for you – an even “thicker” accent); needing to print out a document written on the computer in order to edit it (rather than just editing on the screen); and bringing people physically into your office to see an interesting web site (rather than just sending them the URL)…..My own favourite is the “Did you get my email?” phone call.”
The paper explores the impact of this action on the generational divide and goes on to outline how education might be different but there is more to the immigration analogy than simply the accent. It speaks more to the immigrants place in the world and ways of thinking.
He suggests that the immigrant community, by their nature, are deemed to declare: “I am not comfortable in this place”. Let’s consider the immigration analogy a little further, by exploring some themes around English ex-pat community in Spain (and other Mediterranean countries) as a parallel “immigration”. There is no single immigrant community or attitudinal set, but rather sub-sets, let's explore these and their learning technology equivalents:
Spain: “I like the climate, but I want to live in a mini-England with sun”
Learning Technology: “I like the convenience of technology for booking holidays, banking, news etc but I want to teach they way I always have”
Spain: “I love living in Spain, but I haven’t bothered to learn the language, I get my son/daughter to deal with all the Spanish things”
Learning Technology: “I like being associated with a technology-rich course, but I rely on younger members of the teaching team to do it.”
Spain: “I can’t really speak the language, but I have a few stock phrases I can use to get by in shops”
Learning Technology: “I don’t understand it, but I have my list of eight steps to upload my teaching material and I can email if I need to”
Spain: “I speak great Spanish! And the locals are so grateful when I try” (think policeman in ‘Allo ‘Allo)
Learning Technology: “I use as much technology as I can, and the students are so grateful I ‘deliver’ in this way”
Spain: “I like Spain, I like everything about it, I have to learn the language to really live here, to get the most out of it”
Learning Technology: “Don’t give me this digital immigrant nonsense, I live in the digital age too, if I want to use technology and it makes learning better – I will!”
OK, so that is the “foreign land” perspective and whilst many will continue to assert that learning is learning and will never change, and that “all this is fine, but not in my subject”, many digital natives leave the higher education classroom with a mashed-up, mp3 speed-enhanced, flickr-blog impression that the first line of L.P. Hartley’s (1953) novel The Go-between is speaking directly to them - the past really is a foreign country, and they really do do things differently there...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
