Since Halloween is right around the corner, I've tried to work in the R.I.P. theme into this post.
But before trying to explain that, I want to share a great resource for teachers at Edmodo.com. With 3.5 million users, I think I'm one of the last ones to join the Edmodo environment. Edmodo is a safe (secure, protected) social network that teachers can create for their classes, and then share resources (threaded discussions, texts, etc.) with students. In addition, it's a tremendous resource for teachers networking with other teachers. There are a host of groups (math, etc.) within Edmodo for teachers to join.
Check it out. It's free.
Now onto my symbolic RIP request...
Having just come out of a two-day workshop on excellence within a 21st Century School, I got to spend a good deal of time with our (American International School of Budapest) Middle School tech intergrationist, Bill Farren.
Bill won't mind me saying that we are doing a disservice to technology when we continue to refer to "tech integration". Are we still stuck in a mindset that has us create compelling units and then think of technology as some after-thought that we should add in order to satisfy others that the unit is cutting edge? When we think of tech integration as some after-thought we missing the more exciting question of how effective are we using technology.
Did our teacher-ancestors speak in terms of white-board integration? Or, ball point pen integration?
21st Century skills are asking students (and schools) to be effective users of technology. When we start to think of those outcomes (or any outcomes), we only need to ask if technology will help us get there? Often times it will, but lets bury the technology integration label once and for all.
Bill, we'll work on getting some new business cards soon.
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Digital Promise, Launchedu, ImagineK12: looking ahead
When we look at how to harness a new model of education, it will be interesting to see what type of changes educational incubators will bring about.
I'd like to share three promising initiatives that are on the horizon, and would love to hear of others of a similar nature.
From their website:
Knowledge. Technology. Possibility.
A new national center founded to spur breakthrough
technologies that can help transform the way teachers teach and students
learn.
is authorized:
"(A) to support research to improve education, teaching,
and learning that is in the public interest, but that is determined
unlikely to be undertaken entirely with private funds;
(B) to support
(i) precompetitive research, development, and demonstrations; (ii)
assessments of prototypes of innovative digital learning and information
technologies, as well as the components and tools needed to create such
technologies; and (iii) pilot testing and evaluation of prototype
systems described in clause (ii); and
(C) to encourage the widespread
adoption and use of effective, innovative digital approaches to
improving education, teaching, and learning."
2. Launchedu
As part of the SXSWedu Conference from March 6-8 2012, Launchedu is described below.
Based upon successful Accelerator programs at SXSW Interactive and SXSW Music, LAUNCHedu provides an exciting opportunity for conference registrants to see promising entrepreneurs publicly pitch their startup education business concepts and products. LAUNCHedu sessions are sure to be full of fast-paced conversation and demonstrations before a panel of judges that include venture capitalists, successful entrepreneurs, and education practitioners.
Companies that are deemed to have the greatest opportunity for success and impact will move forward to an exciting final round of presentations, where the winners will be announced…and rewarded! SXSWedu appreciates the hard work of its LAUNCHedu Advisory Council, who is actively engaged in developing an entertaining, enlightening and rewarding experience.
3. Imagine k12
Imagine K12 is a for-profit enterprise looking to invest time, experience, energy and resources in entrepreneurs who have a passion for education and the technical know-how to create their vision. Over a three month period, we will draw on our extensive entrepreneurial experience, understanding of the Silicon Valley ecosystem, and knowledge of the education industry to help bring your idea to life, get your company funded, and to get your company on the road to success.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Edupreneurs
My thanks to Tom Vander Ark for his post on Getting Smart entitled ImagineK12 Ready to Demo Edupreneurs.
The article shares the "incubator" concept (such as Y-Combinator) utilized by the business world for helping entrepreneurs bring their concept to market - except that the folks at ImagineK12 have used the same idea with bringing new educational ideas to market.
What an excellent way to work through what can be a difficult process - breaking into the educational market to showcase innovative technologies that have the potential to change education.
I hope everyone out there is able to spread the word regarding this concept so that the best ideas end up in front of our students.
Behind the scenes "thank yous" to the folks at Learn Capital who finance the operation and Startl, the non-profit arm of ImagineK12.
Put in your application. Share with friends. And help push the "edupreneur" concept !
Derek
The article shares the "incubator" concept (such as Y-Combinator) utilized by the business world for helping entrepreneurs bring their concept to market - except that the folks at ImagineK12 have used the same idea with bringing new educational ideas to market.
What an excellent way to work through what can be a difficult process - breaking into the educational market to showcase innovative technologies that have the potential to change education.
I hope everyone out there is able to spread the word regarding this concept so that the best ideas end up in front of our students.
Behind the scenes "thank yous" to the folks at Learn Capital who finance the operation and Startl, the non-profit arm of ImagineK12.
Put in your application. Share with friends. And help push the "edupreneur" concept !
Derek
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Teacher-Software-Developers: Pushing up the SAMR model
Having just completed our CEESA (Central and Eastern European Schools Association) Conference, I'm filled with the usual flurry of ideas running around my head.
The keynote, Tom Guskey, was excellent with his presentation on the follies of our current grading practices. If I follow the theme of this blog regarding educational change, I'm not sure if there is a topic bigger than that of "how we grade" to make a difference.
But since I was a presenter at the conference I'll be a little selfish and share some thoughts and questions that I'm still trying to answer.
Initially, I intended a solid session from Bill Mackenty from the American School of Warsaw who shared how he is working with staff there to integrate tech more using the SAMR model. Interesting stuff.
It led in nicely to a session I led on trying to link tech-based simulations to standards and benchmarks. My premise is this: (and I say all of this with a big question mark, looking for some guidance and feedback)
When we consider "content-based" technology solutions (think simCity, not Skype, wikis, etc.), there are two general camps and most solutions tend to fall on one side or the other - seldom in the middle.
In Group 1: Some technology solutions are strictly content based, and targeted specifically at standards.. (Mavis Beacon, online math sites, etc.) While these sites are usually much easier to integrate into the classroom, and they are most likely more successful at helping students reach a specific few standards (compared to teaching without the technology), they are quite narrow and algorithmic. We could call them educationally "efficient" uses of technology to teach specific skills or content- helping students learn multiplication tables faster than they would without the technology. But they do little to transform education.
In Group 2: Simulations (simCity, World or Warcraft, Farmville, etc.) offer excellent examples of Project Based Learning (and Challenge Based Learning). However, they are so open-ended that I believe teachers have trouble implementing them into the classroom unless they are willing to put in a large amount of time linking them to standards. Or, alternatively, they may want to neglect the standards to some degree in an attempt to get at more engaged, holistic learning. Despite their practical limitations, this group offers the potential to transform learning if done correctly.
My presentation is asking why we don't have more technology-based applications that link specific content into open-ended learning where students make choices in a dynamic, authentic environment? We reviewed 2 examples which I would consider this "middle ground" - based in enough content to be easily used by the teacher, and flexible and open-ended enough to place students in authentic situations where they will need to make decisions in a complex environment:
1) simCEO
2) Jason Science
And we ask the same question in two different ways:
1) What are some other examples of technology that fall into this middle ground?
2) At what point are we going to provide a structure where strong teachers who have ideas galore for these types of projects can tap into the development world of technology to make them available for students on a large scale?
For example, in what way could creative teachers use technology to put students in open-ended, authentic, complex, (collaborative?), "choose your own adventure" types of learning tasks centered around specific content goals such as:
a) photosynthesis
b) man versus nature (in relation to a specific book, perhaps)
c) international coalitions for regime change
d) individual rights vs. collective security
I know of many teachers who teach these concepts in fascinating, authentic ways. But why aren't we tapping into these ideas to produce technology integration ideas that can do it for us - better.
Or, to put it another way: Why don't we use the students' natural engagement with simulation-based learning to modify World of Warcraft to teach specifically about American History?
Any thoughts? Let me know. I'd love to hear em.
The keynote, Tom Guskey, was excellent with his presentation on the follies of our current grading practices. If I follow the theme of this blog regarding educational change, I'm not sure if there is a topic bigger than that of "how we grade" to make a difference.
But since I was a presenter at the conference I'll be a little selfish and share some thoughts and questions that I'm still trying to answer.
Initially, I intended a solid session from Bill Mackenty from the American School of Warsaw who shared how he is working with staff there to integrate tech more using the SAMR model. Interesting stuff.
It led in nicely to a session I led on trying to link tech-based simulations to standards and benchmarks. My premise is this: (and I say all of this with a big question mark, looking for some guidance and feedback)
When we consider "content-based" technology solutions (think simCity, not Skype, wikis, etc.), there are two general camps and most solutions tend to fall on one side or the other - seldom in the middle.
In Group 1: Some technology solutions are strictly content based, and targeted specifically at standards.. (Mavis Beacon, online math sites, etc.) While these sites are usually much easier to integrate into the classroom, and they are most likely more successful at helping students reach a specific few standards (compared to teaching without the technology), they are quite narrow and algorithmic. We could call them educationally "efficient" uses of technology to teach specific skills or content- helping students learn multiplication tables faster than they would without the technology. But they do little to transform education.
In Group 2: Simulations (simCity, World or Warcraft, Farmville, etc.) offer excellent examples of Project Based Learning (and Challenge Based Learning). However, they are so open-ended that I believe teachers have trouble implementing them into the classroom unless they are willing to put in a large amount of time linking them to standards. Or, alternatively, they may want to neglect the standards to some degree in an attempt to get at more engaged, holistic learning. Despite their practical limitations, this group offers the potential to transform learning if done correctly.
My presentation is asking why we don't have more technology-based applications that link specific content into open-ended learning where students make choices in a dynamic, authentic environment? We reviewed 2 examples which I would consider this "middle ground" - based in enough content to be easily used by the teacher, and flexible and open-ended enough to place students in authentic situations where they will need to make decisions in a complex environment:
1) simCEO
2) Jason Science
And we ask the same question in two different ways:
1) What are some other examples of technology that fall into this middle ground?
2) At what point are we going to provide a structure where strong teachers who have ideas galore for these types of projects can tap into the development world of technology to make them available for students on a large scale?
For example, in what way could creative teachers use technology to put students in open-ended, authentic, complex, (collaborative?), "choose your own adventure" types of learning tasks centered around specific content goals such as:
a) photosynthesis
b) man versus nature (in relation to a specific book, perhaps)
c) international coalitions for regime change
d) individual rights vs. collective security
I know of many teachers who teach these concepts in fascinating, authentic ways. But why aren't we tapping into these ideas to produce technology integration ideas that can do it for us - better.
Or, to put it another way: Why don't we use the students' natural engagement with simulation-based learning to modify World of Warcraft to teach specifically about American History?
Any thoughts? Let me know. I'd love to hear em.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
A "Bridge" Connecting What?
A “Bridge” Connecting What?
In my last post, we shared some background into Brain-Based Learning, Project-Based Learning, and Challenge-Based Learning. We left with a few questions:
1) How well-suited are the classroom learning activities aligning with these characteristics?
2) Specifically, how is technology being used to develop activities that align with these characteristics?
As a visual learner, I've taken the liberty of summarizing the characteristics into a chart. Obviously, there are many overlapping criteria in the three models of learning and I did my best to align similar aspects in the same row, although it is fair to say that these alignments are certainly debatable.
 |
| Aligning BBL, PBL, and CBL characteristics |
Many of you most likely remember the simulation Oregon Trail - the purpose-filled quest with educational outcomes and content buried within. How closely have we adapted classroom resources like that – utilizing all that Web. 2.0 can do – to create innovative, collaborative, and dynamic environments where students are constructing their own learning for an authentic purpose?
How are we using technology in the classroom to enhance learning?
We all recognize that technology allows us to access INFORMATION – of course, we can thank Google, wikipedia, and those webcams shooting us the live feed of the watering hole in the African safari, but lets not forget other applications (online or not): digital field trips, explorations of the solar system or the human body, or online textbooks. Technology allows information to be presented in a much more creative manner; it can be interactive; it some cases it can even be responsive and prompt us to construct meaning. These are needed and helpful applications of technology. But at the end of the day, these examples of technology are presenters of information.
(There is no doubt that if we are utilizing technology correctly in this information-access capacity we need to be re-structuring the “what” of our curriculum to deal with the information overload and instead help students to effectively find, sort, and sift information into a pattern that has meaning - namely, making our students "information literate".
For those interested, there are many Info. Lit. leaders out there like David Warlick and Patricia Senn Breivik . But I digress… )
The other use of technology in schools tends to be more glorified applications of Web 2.0 and how these technologies are meant to transform school. It is in this category, that we often hear the refrain that the specific technology application is irrelevant, and that the skills of this new “information literate” curriculum are meant to take focus - and somehow 2.0 technologies will easily be incorporated into the classroom to help in this process.
But current Web 2.0 technologies (Twitter, Facebook, and even Wikis and Noodle to a lesser degree) can pose a struggle to a teacher who is aiming to achieve specific learning objectives demanded from state standards. These Web 2.0 applications achieve high-marks in creating the collaborative environment that we all envision in a Problem/Challenge Based Learning classroom, and they certainly make use of technology to make that environment a reality. But they will continue to be under-utilized until teachers are presented with a more clearly defined way in which these technologies can get students to the standards in a way that is effective and efficient. We should be striving to also develop technology applications that DO have content embedded (think Oregon Trail) and still allow for learning environments that are consistent with the chart above.
While it is impossible to disagree with wise folks like Dave Warlick who espouse that it isn’t about the technology – that schools today should strive to produce information-literate users who can sift and sort through the mountains of information, recognize bias, and utilize Blooms upper levels fluently – I believe the technology really does matter ! If we attempt to implement 2.0 applications and hope/expect that these the more traditional content standards are integrated more efficiently, we are going to force teachers into an either-or mentality where their devotion to information literacy will almost surely come at the expense of content (and standardized tests) which are so highly valued. In this light, we may be causing a confusion (and reluctance) for some teachers who can't justify the use of these 2.0 technologies and therefore don't embrace them.
Project Based Learning
There is a third way that technology is being applied which synthesizes the two, known as Project Based Learning. Usually, these include a healthy does of technology (and usually, Web. 2.0 technologies !) tied into a specific topic such as analyzing water treatment facilities, or saving polar bears. The projects are great examples of specific topics in which students are involved with an authentic purpose and utilizing technology to compile and share data with other student-users who then collaborate on questions, proposals and solutions. In many ways, these projects blend the best of both worlds – the content, skills, and understandings that are needed to analyze water quality combined with Web 2.0 applications to promote collaboration and feedback.
In the truest sense, these authentic activities allow students to “think like scientists / public health officials/ historians /etc." It is no wonder that these are the types of activities that often spur the break-out enthusiasm in students that give the topic life when the unit is over.
If there is a drawback to these, it is that the slices of content may not be applicable to all . (Do other/many schools study water quality in the 9th grade?) Furthermore, these types of projects usually require at least one teacher to be well-versed on the sources referenced, collaboration tools used, and overall structure of the project requirements to become involved. This is especially true for those pioneer teachers who initially start the project and put in significant hours of development.
Bridging this Divide: Developing / Using Technology AS Problem-Based Learning, Not as a Supplement to It
But we certainly can see the development of technologies that offer both the content and the freedom to teachers and students (again, think Oregon Trail) so that multiple directions can be taken, students can explore, and teachers can customize according to students' abilities and course learning outcomes.
What we need then, are educational technology solutions that meet the following criteria:
1) are naturally engaging, placing students in authentic situations which require students to “think like mathematicians / historians / scientists / …” as they apply knowledge and construct their own understandings.
2) are collaborative (and take advantage of Web 2.0 technologies where applicable), promoting an environment that requires learners to discover and make meaning of content together in order to be successful
3) are tied closely enough to content to merit an easy integration in the classroom, but flexible enough so that objectives in varying complexity / disciplines can be met
3b) are naturally holistic connecting multiple disciplines, contrasted with solutions that allow for extension activities that MIGHT possibly be added to provide connections to other disciplines
4) have a timely (immediate) feedback mechanism, whenever possible
5) allow learning to occur on the learner’s schedule in a relaxed environment
6) meet as many of the other characteristics of best practices in Brain-Based Learning and Project/Challenge - Based Learning as possible.
Applications that can meet these criteria are easy to integrate and truly help bridge the gap between the two categories of technology integration that largely exist thus far. We’ll have our Oregon Trail for Web 2.0
The most logical source for these types of applications will be educators. In a future posting, we’ll explore some examples that are out there, ask for your help in identifying others, and share a few structural resources that are currently available as well as a few that we need to add in order to encourage more innovative technologies.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Bridging the Technology Gap
What better way to start than a short video on Defining Our Problems from Tina Seelig, Executive Director of Stanford University's eCorner. (Full Podcast here.)
I like that video, and not just because it promotes the notion of entrepreneurial thinking (which will likely be a feature of a later post), but because it shows how easily we define our problems in education based on the way in which we pose the question. Namely, that the nature of trying to improve or tweak a system that was set up for yesterday’s outcomes is limiting the amount of progress we can make. Many wise folks are in the midst of educational reform of a larger nature – Joel Rose's A School of One in NYC, and Dennis Litsky’s Big Picture Schools are just two examples. While grander re-assessments such as these are the future, my goal for this blog is to remain in the more mundane world of the current reality – practical applications that have the potential to impact learning in the current school structure and aid the transition of larger reforms by showing what is possible.
FROM THEORY TO CLASSROOM: BRIDGING THE TECHNOLOGY GAP
Having just returned from the Lausanne Laptop Institute, a great 1:1 Conference at in Memphis, it’s easy to be jazzed about all technology can do to change education.
Like other educational conferences, I always leave with my mind spinning between theory and practice – between what I’ve just heard, and what my school (American International School of Budapest) does.
But I was also left with an uncomfortable feeling as well. Why does it sound so easy to change in theory and yet the applications struggle to be implemented and/or have done fairly little to alter the way in which students learn? I left with a nagging feeling that we still have a gap that does not seem to be addressed much.
Is it really true that “it isn’t about the technology” ? – that it’s about using that technology to teach students about sifting, searching, finding, evaluating, applying, summarizing (and every other higher order of Blooms Taxonomy that can be used). If it’s not about the technology, why is it that so many Web 2.0 technologies (with their wide open infrastructure and social networking opportunities) are not widespread and easily adopted within K-12 settings. And why haven't we integrated this new curricular reality more readily and thrown out the content to make room for the information literacy? I suspect it's because education is a massive institution, and we still have a lot of reluctance toward discarding some of these elements - many are still not sold on how to do this, what it looks like, or how different it all is.
What technologies currently exist that are easy to integrate? How closely do these technologies align with new research-based models of learning, instead of using technology for technology’s sake ? – promoting a more high-tech environment for the same type of learning.
We can’t address these questions until we get some grounding into current learning research, which thankfully is abundant. For the sake of providing some yardstick, we can share some brief nuggets regarding two areas: Brain-Based Learning and Project (or Challenge)-Based Learning. The summaries below are by no means meant to be exhaustive; they are simply meant to provide an overview so that we can attempt to link these areas of research together and have some framework to assess the current uses of technology in education. Interested folks are encouraged to read more about these topics at the links mentioned.
1) BRAIN BASED LEARNING (BBL)
Image via WikipediaThere is a pleathora of research available for interested learners. I'm a fan of Eric Jensen. Eduscapes also puts together a nice summary and links to a few sites.
Our goal is to simply share a few bullets related to the characteristics of activities that need to be present to tap into the research in brain-based learning. These would include:
(from Caine and Caine's 1994 research)
1. Relaxed alertness - a low threat, high challenge state of mind
2. Orchestrated immersion - an multiple, complex, authentic experience
3. Active processing - making meaning through experience processing
Susan Kovalik identified 9 elements of thematic instruction that are compatible with tapping into brain-based learning. These elements are:
Absence of Threat,
Meaningful Content,
Choices,
Movement to Enhance Learning,
Enriched Environment,
Adequate Time,
Collaboration,
Immediate Feedback, and
Mastery (at the application level)
2) CHALLENGE-BASED LEARNING / PROJECT BASED LEARNING
There are a host of other similar "learnings" out there - authentic, inquiry-based, etc. - that would be applicable here as well. To be succinct, I've only listed the two below.
Again, a wealth of resources are available. (And while they are similar, note that Challenge / Problem are not completely the same.) Here are the major characteristics that define these types of learning activities, as (currently) defined by that bastion of source citation, Wikipedia.
CHALLENGE BASED LEARNING (CBL)
1) Multiple points of entry and varied and multiple possible solutions
2) Authentic connection with multiple disciplines
3) Focus on the development of 21st century skills
4) Leverages 24/7 access to up to date technology tools and resources, allowing students to do the work.
5) Use of Web 2.0 tools for organizing, collaborating, and sharing
6) A focus on universal challenges with local solutions
7) Requirement that students do something rather than just learn about something
8) Documentation of the experience from challenge to solution.
PROBLEM BASED LEARNING (PBL)
1) is organized around an open-ended Driving Question or Challenge. These focus students’ work and deepen their learning by centering on significant issues, debates, questions and/or problems.
2) creates a need to know essential content and skills. Typical projects (and most instruction) begin by presenting students with knowledge and concepts and then, once learned, give them the opportunity to apply them. PBL begins with the vision of an end product or presentation which requires learning specific knowledge and concepts, thus creating a context and reason to learn and understand the information and concepts.
3) requires inquiry to learn and/or create something new. Not all learning has to be based on inquiry, but some should. And this inquiry should lead students to construct something new – an idea, an interpretation, a new way of displaying what they have learned.
4) requires critical thinking, problem solving, collaboration, and various forms of communication. Students need to do much more than remember information—they need to use higher-order thinking skills. They also have to learn to work as a team and contribute to a group effort. They must listen to others and make their own ideas clear when speaking, be able to read a variety of material, write or otherwise express themselves in various modes, and make effective presentations. These skills, competencies and habits of mind are often known as "21st Century Skills". For more info: http://www.bie.org/about/21st_century_skills
5) allows some degree of student voice and choice. Students learn to work independently and take responsibility when they are asked to make choices. The opportunity to make choices, and to express their learning in their own voice, also helps to increase students’ educational engagement.
6) incorporates feedback and revision. Students use peer critique to improve their work to create higher quality products.
7) results in a publicly presented product or performance. What you know is demonstrated by what you do, and what you do must be open to public scrutiny and critique.
In a general sense, the task before us is to analyze the degree to which our classroom activities support the characteristics of BBL and CBL/PBL. And more specifically, how can technology provide support to move in this direction. To what extent are we designing and utilizing technologies which support these models of learning?
In the next segment, we'll be exploring the two general uses of technology in education thus far, and the bridge that we need to connect the two.
I like that video, and not just because it promotes the notion of entrepreneurial thinking (which will likely be a feature of a later post), but because it shows how easily we define our problems in education based on the way in which we pose the question. Namely, that the nature of trying to improve or tweak a system that was set up for yesterday’s outcomes is limiting the amount of progress we can make. Many wise folks are in the midst of educational reform of a larger nature – Joel Rose's A School of One in NYC, and Dennis Litsky’s Big Picture Schools are just two examples. While grander re-assessments such as these are the future, my goal for this blog is to remain in the more mundane world of the current reality – practical applications that have the potential to impact learning in the current school structure and aid the transition of larger reforms by showing what is possible.
FROM THEORY TO CLASSROOM: BRIDGING THE TECHNOLOGY GAP
Having just returned from the Lausanne Laptop Institute, a great 1:1 Conference at in Memphis, it’s easy to be jazzed about all technology can do to change education.
Like other educational conferences, I always leave with my mind spinning between theory and practice – between what I’ve just heard, and what my school (American International School of Budapest) does.
But I was also left with an uncomfortable feeling as well. Why does it sound so easy to change in theory and yet the applications struggle to be implemented and/or have done fairly little to alter the way in which students learn? I left with a nagging feeling that we still have a gap that does not seem to be addressed much.
Is it really true that “it isn’t about the technology” ? – that it’s about using that technology to teach students about sifting, searching, finding, evaluating, applying, summarizing (and every other higher order of Blooms Taxonomy that can be used). If it’s not about the technology, why is it that so many Web 2.0 technologies (with their wide open infrastructure and social networking opportunities) are not widespread and easily adopted within K-12 settings. And why haven't we integrated this new curricular reality more readily and thrown out the content to make room for the information literacy? I suspect it's because education is a massive institution, and we still have a lot of reluctance toward discarding some of these elements - many are still not sold on how to do this, what it looks like, or how different it all is.
What technologies currently exist that are easy to integrate? How closely do these technologies align with new research-based models of learning, instead of using technology for technology’s sake ? – promoting a more high-tech environment for the same type of learning.
We can’t address these questions until we get some grounding into current learning research, which thankfully is abundant. For the sake of providing some yardstick, we can share some brief nuggets regarding two areas: Brain-Based Learning and Project (or Challenge)-Based Learning. The summaries below are by no means meant to be exhaustive; they are simply meant to provide an overview so that we can attempt to link these areas of research together and have some framework to assess the current uses of technology in education. Interested folks are encouraged to read more about these topics at the links mentioned.
1) BRAIN BASED LEARNING (BBL)
Image via WikipediaOur goal is to simply share a few bullets related to the characteristics of activities that need to be present to tap into the research in brain-based learning. These would include:
(from Caine and Caine's 1994 research)
1. Relaxed alertness - a low threat, high challenge state of mind
2. Orchestrated immersion - an multiple, complex, authentic experience
3. Active processing - making meaning through experience processing
Susan Kovalik identified 9 elements of thematic instruction that are compatible with tapping into brain-based learning. These elements are:
Absence of Threat,
Meaningful Content,
Choices,
Movement to Enhance Learning,
Enriched Environment,
Adequate Time,
Collaboration,
Immediate Feedback, and
Mastery (at the application level)
2) CHALLENGE-BASED LEARNING / PROJECT BASED LEARNING
There are a host of other similar "learnings" out there - authentic, inquiry-based, etc. - that would be applicable here as well. To be succinct, I've only listed the two below.
Again, a wealth of resources are available. (And while they are similar, note that Challenge / Problem are not completely the same.) Here are the major characteristics that define these types of learning activities, as (currently) defined by that bastion of source citation, Wikipedia.
CHALLENGE BASED LEARNING (CBL)
1) Multiple points of entry and varied and multiple possible solutions
2) Authentic connection with multiple disciplines
3) Focus on the development of 21st century skills
4) Leverages 24/7 access to up to date technology tools and resources, allowing students to do the work.
5) Use of Web 2.0 tools for organizing, collaborating, and sharing
6) A focus on universal challenges with local solutions
7) Requirement that students do something rather than just learn about something
8) Documentation of the experience from challenge to solution.
PROBLEM BASED LEARNING (PBL)
1) is organized around an open-ended Driving Question or Challenge. These focus students’ work and deepen their learning by centering on significant issues, debates, questions and/or problems.
2) creates a need to know essential content and skills. Typical projects (and most instruction) begin by presenting students with knowledge and concepts and then, once learned, give them the opportunity to apply them. PBL begins with the vision of an end product or presentation which requires learning specific knowledge and concepts, thus creating a context and reason to learn and understand the information and concepts.
3) requires inquiry to learn and/or create something new. Not all learning has to be based on inquiry, but some should. And this inquiry should lead students to construct something new – an idea, an interpretation, a new way of displaying what they have learned.
4) requires critical thinking, problem solving, collaboration, and various forms of communication. Students need to do much more than remember information—they need to use higher-order thinking skills. They also have to learn to work as a team and contribute to a group effort. They must listen to others and make their own ideas clear when speaking, be able to read a variety of material, write or otherwise express themselves in various modes, and make effective presentations. These skills, competencies and habits of mind are often known as "21st Century Skills". For more info: http://www.bie.org/about/21st_century_skills
5) allows some degree of student voice and choice. Students learn to work independently and take responsibility when they are asked to make choices. The opportunity to make choices, and to express their learning in their own voice, also helps to increase students’ educational engagement.
6) incorporates feedback and revision. Students use peer critique to improve their work to create higher quality products.
7) results in a publicly presented product or performance. What you know is demonstrated by what you do, and what you do must be open to public scrutiny and critique.
In a general sense, the task before us is to analyze the degree to which our classroom activities support the characteristics of BBL and CBL/PBL. And more specifically, how can technology provide support to move in this direction. To what extent are we designing and utilizing technologies which support these models of learning?
In the next segment, we'll be exploring the two general uses of technology in education thus far, and the bridge that we need to connect the two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)