Cammo…in low definition

Reading through a recent Ministerial Statement from Julia Gillard (Minister for Education), it struck me that I actually agree with the stance that the government is taking in regards to considering educational reform and policy from a wholistic perspective. I make no effort to conceal the fact that I voted for the current government and make no effort to defend my bias. I am willing to argue the fact that regardless of my leanings of support, if I do not agree with a policy this, then my thoughts will not be brushed aside for the ‘greater good’.

In this Ministerial Statement the following can be found:

”

Australian schools will be better equipped to face the future. The Digital Education Revolution is being rolled out in secondary schools in collaboration with state and territory governments. The Rudd Government’s $1.2 billion investment over five years provides an opportunity to transform the way teachers teach and students learn, and to equip our students for the future.

In addition, in this Budget the Rudd Labor Government commences delivering our $2.5 billion investment in trades training centres in secondary schools and on our promise to make trades training available and attractive to secondary students.

In the next financial year, the Rudd Government will spend $457 million on school capital works. Over the next four years we will spend more than $1.7 billion on maintenance and infrastructure in our schools.

The Rudd Government will also ensure that all students are supported to get the basics right by investing $577.4 million over four years to support a National Action Plan on Literacy and Numeracy. Assistance will be targeted to students who need it the most and $56.4 million will be delivered over four years for literacy and numeracy programs and individual learning plans for Indigenous students.”

I think it is positive that the government hasn’t only restricted it’s policy to cover the upgrade of new technology (much needed and much publicised) but has realised that effective education is due to a combination of factors including: infrastructure, robust syllabus content and presentation covering a variety of subjects and career directions, values education and also basic, consistent teachings in Literacy and Numeracy.

This approach is imporatant to remember when discussing the importance and effect of technology in education and students lives. Although technology has become an integral part of life and must be considered in education in order to best prepare studenst for lif beyond; it can not be the only focus. A student’s education is a combination of factors some which can be influenced or driven by the teacher, but many are out of a tecaher’s control.

It then becomes important to remain positive in ALL situations and just do the best you can do.

Written in 1997, the article ‘The Computer Delusion’ by Todd Oppenheimer, raises arguments about the impact computer technology will make in schools and the worth of integrating this technology into the education process.

The article makes light of a few arguments that drove the push for the technology to be implemented at that time. These included:

1. Computers improve both teaching practices and student achievement

2. Computer literacy should be taught as early as possible, or the student will be disadvantaged

3. Working with computers and the internet develops interactions with teachers and other students around the world.

Looking back the following comments could be made regarding these assertions:

1. Computers have improved student engagement, interaction and teaching practices, but this can not be solely attributed to the technology, but more the willingness of both the teachers and students to adopt this technology and work together (still getting there). In a sense technology has rolled in regardless of what was happening in the classroom, it soon became evident that the class environment had not choice but to welcome it. Just as it was historically with any new development within any field, the application and integration of new knowledge and skills becomes dependent on those working on the field. Teachers have had to work had to develop new teacging strategies to integrate new technology.

2. It still holds true that computer literacy is important at a very young age, but kids tend to learn most of it without the assistance of the teacher of formalised education, in fact in many cases the teacher has become the one learning off the students. The majority of kids now have access to technology at a young age and become very adept in using it as the majority of their social interactions occur via this medium.

3. The value of computers in providing students with access to the global community is still be touted and in some cases is the norm. Kids of today can keep in touch with friends anywhere in the world, at any time via messenger networks, or can leave messages on SpaceBook, or YourSpace pages. Within the classroom, I am yet to experience video conferencing/debate held across the globe via internet connection. But, with the advancements in technology that allow for costs to be reduced this could not be seen as being too far off.

I found this article interesting as it tended to present a very close-minded attitude to the implementation of technology within classrooms. But as tides do, the technology tide swept all before it away and is now a very important component/piece/consideration/obstacle/tool/asset (however you choose to see it) in the education process, and it isn’t going away.

 

I have to disagree with Izzy Ben’s comments regarding the blog: Is It Okay To Be A Technologically Illiterate Teacher? 

 

Firstly, my thoughts would be that the whole point of a blog is to illicit discussion about the topic (as pointed out in the blog itself and successfully achieved). Secondly, I think that it is important that we begin to hold teachers to a higher standard. I think the best example (and slightly obscure) of setting the bar very high and being determined and tenacious in you approach to achieving this standard is Gordon Ramsey. I know random and obscure example, but who can argue against the fact that Gordon Ramsey sets what would appear to be ridiculously high standards on his staff and produce and follows some very heavy handed and strong methods of achieving this. It would also be noted that this would be key to his fantastic success.

I disagree with Izzy Ben and feel that teachers should be pushed harder, challenged more, demanded more of and supported more to achieve these goals. Setting the bar high (very high) is not a bad things as long as you take the time to reflect on success and failure and disseminate what may have led you to your result. Why shouldn’t teachers be challenged to be ICT wizards? These same teachers challenge their students everyday, in every class. Why shouldn’t tecahers be held accountable for their shortcomings? These same teachers hold their students accountable for their actions, behaviours and industry everyday.

I say relax Izzy Ben, we need people with an opinion. You don’t have to agree with everyone, but it is important to recignise that different opinions exist and some can be held very firmly. We need to be accepting of differences (just as discussed regarding Natives and Immigrants) and embracing of what others may offer.

 

   

Recently I read the Time article ‘The Multi-tasking generation’, by Claudia Wallis and found it to a rather interesting piece on the differences in cultures between older and younger people (let’s not try and place defined age brackets on the groups!). I rather enjoyed the fact that Wallis was able to discuss differences between the two groups without trying to label one as bad or good. Her observations about the different social behaviours of younger generations made me reflect on a recent situation:

 

 

 

Recently my cousin’s son…(not sure what that makes him?) came to visit from Brisbane. He is 14 years old and your typical adolescent male. I arrived home from work at approximately 7:30pm to sit down for dinner at the dinner table, which is the norm in my household. As I sat to join the rest of my family, I noticed that Augustus (not his real name) was sitting at the table with an Ipod earbud/piece in one ear. Upon noticing this, I stopped and asked him to remove it. Augustus questioned my request and so I proceeded to explain that it was regarded as rude by his present company. I made light of the fact that this such behaviour may be acceptable amongst his peers but that it is important to adjust behaviour to accommodate the company you are in. I provided an example I face quite often in my work as a coach. I personally see it as respectful and a sign of someone giving you their attention when they look at you, so I ask for this when I am coaching my squad groups. I explain to these kids that this may not be the case for everyone, but is my expectations and I am clear about them. I continued to state that we as adults adjust our behaviour when in the presence of younger people and that is not as we have something to hide or do things we shouldn’t but more that we do things that may not always be appropriate for their company. In the end Augustus (remember, not his real name) removed his earbud/piece from his ear and joined the conversation.

 

 

 

Reading this article, I think that is should be noted that kids and families don’t splinter off into their own world’s so easily, if the parents explain and help their kids understand the importance of social interaction and appropriate behaviours. The parent walking through the door at night and walking straight to the dinner table to eat, has chosen not to make the effort to go and chat with his/her kids. Of course, the effort could be extended both ways, but as a parent, they must set the example for the kids to follow. Children are social beings and family interaction and bonding is so important, but they must be guided by parents. Augustus understood quite easily what I was talking about, as do most of the kids I coach and deal with. Kids appreciate the effort and as parents and teachers we must afford them that.

 

Simon Flood makes some different observations about an article from the same magazine and from the same author. I found these interesting and informative; in particular as they differ so much from what I got out of the article. HAVE A LOOK!!

Watching the YouTube video entitled: Are kids different because of digital media? Put together by the Macarthur Foundantion and reading Simon and Bianca’s blog postings regarding this, I have some thoughts:

1. Why is it that so many persist with the ‘us vs them’ mentality toward digital technology and it users?  To me is it such a negative approach to a situation that can only be resolved when both sides work together. Teachers need to understand their students and know their current abilities and capabilities. Students need to feel that the teacher will support them and provide them to the best of their ability. The more we continue to widen the divide between the teachers and the students the harder the gap will be to bridge.

2. Is it not ironic that I am choosing to write a blog on the issue that modern teachers are not used to the blogging nature of new students?

3. When are teachers going to put into practice (or if they are, be recognised for doing so) ideas based on the theories of Student-centred/Constuctivist learning (Cammo; Brett)? Ask students to demonstrate their digital abilities (low or high) to illustrate their understanding of content. Give them license to build on their current abilities, but assess them still on how they can convey their understanding of information taught.

We as teachers and our generation is not the same as the one that passed before and differences existed then and they exist now. I still hear my parents and their friends tell me how lucky I am to have grown up at the time I have – no world war, economic stability, government stability and the rest. Just as we have noticed differences between our generation and the one just past, we will find them between our and the one being ushered in over the next few years.

 

Digital Natives: born into a world of technology

Digital Immigrants: living in a world of ‘new’ technology

 

Analogous to a newly ratified nation on the world map, Prensky envisages we live in a world that is a mixing pot of ‘Natives’ and ‘Immigrants’. In the same way as has been seen in so many countries, it becomes important that both groups learn off each other. Prensky highlights the importance of teachers teaching ‘Legacy’ content, which is the literacy and numeracy skills that ‘Immigrants’ would have been taught at school; in addition to ‘Future’ content, which relates to skills involving digital technology.

Killen (2007) notes that an understanding of content is critical for effective teaching, so it becomes questionable how effective a teacher would be at teaching something they may not be as skilled as the student in. Student centred learning is based on the concept of students developing their own understanding of new content and information; why are students not given more free reign to utilise and develop upon their current abilities in conjunction with the teacher? Thus providing both with new learning opportunities (this thought is struck upon in Drew’s Blog – why not speak their language? ).

Teachers cannot expect to maintain pace with students and their technological ability, it needs to be remembered that each New Year brings more Digital Natives that are more accomplish than the last group. Teachers should embrace the thought that they can learn off their students. This should allow them to focus on teaching students skills that they would not know (ie ‘Legacy’ content) and then work with them to help them develop their techno skills. In doing so you would be teaching them to self educate and continue with learning long beyond formalised schooling has finished. Is this not the aim of school?

 

References

Prensky, M. (2001). On the Horizon. MCB University Press.

Killen, R. (2007). Effective teaching strategies: lessons from research and practice, Fourth edition. Social Science Press, Melbourne, Australia.

I had a quick look at this article and thought it raised a few interesting (if dated) points regarding whether or not technology allowed educators to achieve three important goals of the education process:

1. Retention

2. Understanding

3. Active use of knowledge and skills

The article discussed different ways that technology can enhance this process through active engagement of the learner in the process and application of skills to learning; but also noted ways in which technology can hinder the process, for example by the increased reliance on such technology for successful learning.

Perkins, D. (1991). Technology Meets Constructivism: Do They Make a Marriage? Educational Technology, 31(5), 18-23

Remember this day 5th November. Barack Hussein Obama is elected as president of the United States of America, the first African American President.

As one woman put it:

“He had an Asian childhood, African parentage and has a Middle Eastern name. He is a truly global president”

A pretty amazing event…

“Millennials expect to be able to gather and share information in multiple devices in multiple places. They shrewdly sort out what communication and what information “belongs” on what device and under what circumstances.”

I find this comment really interesting from both an educational and professional perspective. 

Within the school setting, one can observe students receiving messages on phones, while checking emails and research a study topic on Google. They would then continue to send information to the wider world through these and other avenues.

The same applies within the professional world, with communicaion streams having to be established to allow for faster and easier connection to the networked generations.

I do find though, that younger generations tend to lack the ability to determine the more appropriate avenue for communicating. More specifiaclly relating to social and professional settings, I have found that younger generations are unable to chose the more correct method of communicating; often taking the option that will avoid any chance for confrontation. I have found this to breed social irresponsibility, with people shirking away from issues that may previously required serious discussion or resolution.

Thinking about my Practicum and what I would write for this statement I began to mull over the words “students’ creative use of a RANGE of learning technologies”. I also began to think of the saying: ‘A student is only as good as their teacher’ and it came to me that with the rate of development of new technologies and the incredibly fast rate at which young people can master these; are the applications of technology within the classroom old news before they are even thought of? Are we limiting the use of ICT only to what the teacher is competent in? Instead of exploring the ability of the student?

 

Papert’s Constructionist approach to teaching envisages that effective learning occurs through the construction of a tangible entity. Keri Facer discusses this in her numerous articles identifying the benefits that could be garnered from using video/computer games and the development of these in the education process. Facer (2001) notes that computer games have an amazing ability to hold the attention of younger generations and urges that these games be utilised for learning. Only recently, Sony released a game (Little Big Planet) that allows gamers to develop their own characters, story, even entire gaming world. This highlights the attraction of having the ability (read power) to control and create. Facer has been championing this idea for some time and her thoughts are in line with Papert’s ideas of the Constructionist approach. Why not let students explore technology and it’s applications in more depth, in order to engage them in the education process?

 

Now comes the problem: How many teachers are confident or even competent using this kind of software or technology? Education tends to prepare us with the skills that will be required after schooling ends. A prime example is the mighty Powerpoint presentation. Every three seconds a new Powerpoint presentation is created (not actually true, but tried to create some dramatic effect); it is an application most adults and teachers are comfortable with, and because of this students are encouraged to use it. But will this software still be used by the time they finish school? Papert says in his 2004 article (‘Technology in Schools: To support the system or render it obsolete’) that:

“as long as schools confine the technology to simply improving what they are doing rather than really changing the system, nothing very significant will happen”.

My thoughts are aligned with this statement in that as long as a student’s creative use of technology within the classroom is limited to that of the teacher or the mass of society, then we are severely limiting the potential of the student. Bryant (2007) states that

“experimentation and innovation should be encouraged. Anything less runs the risk of turning educational IT into an irrelevant backwater that is fso ar below the expectations of young peoplethat they simply do their learning elsewhere.”

Assessment tasks and syllabus outcomes are inevitably based on the teacher’s perception of challenging and exploratory ICT tasks, but what could we gain from letting the students define how they use the technology?

 

Means (2001) believes that the adoption of new technology within schools is inevitable and identifies connectivity and mobility as significant benefits of new technologies to schooling. Means continues that students will be able to work collaboratively across vast areas and access information from various locations with ease. Additionally, Means highlights that the effective application of this technology will depend on the ability of teachers to be prepared and supported.

 

My final thought is that teachers tend to be behind the students in their ability to utilise new technology. If we chose to set assessment tasks that limit our students to what we can understand, we are limiting their potential to engage in the task and develop skills beyond the basic outlines of the curriculum. If we were to set more liberal tasks that allowed the student to explore their ICT skills while concurrently fulfilling the objectives related directly to the KLA, we would be fostering the extension of the students learning. By doing this we would most effectively be incorporating ICT within the education process.

 

 

References:

 

Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: what’s the difference? Retrieved 4th November 2008 from: http://learning.media.mit.edu/content/publications/EA.Piaget%20 %20Papert.pdf.

BECTA (2008). Emerging technologies for learning. Retrieved 5th November from: http://partners.becta.org.uk/index.php?section=rh&catcode=_re_rp_02&rid=13768

Facer, K. (2001). What’s the point of using computers? New Media & Society, 3(2), 199-219.

Means, B. (2001). Technology use in tomorrow’s schools. Educational Leadership, December, 57-61.

Papert, S. (2004). Technology in schools: to support the system or render it obsolete. Retrieved 4th November 2008 from: http://www.mff.org/edtech/article.taf? function=detail&Content uid1=106.