Pete’s Educational Rant

A lecture yesterday brought back the notion of What is meaningful learning as expressed by Jonassen. The lecturer stated we should think about this at least twice a year and ensure we are incorporating it into our teaching. I tend to think we should be incorporating it every time we plan a lesson.
Annie  posted regarding a Wayne Gretsky quote “Skate to where the puck’s going to be…not where it is” and posed the question How would this impact on the classroom environment we are creating?
Tying the 2 together we need to ask ourselves daily, ‘Whats meaningful to our students and how do we get there?’

This podcast is in relation to Terry Freedman’s article.

Pete Podcast

Image: To be called a cheater kills me !!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/5oo5a/1334525401/

After reading Chris Betcher’s post on Cheating I’m convinced that PLC has got it right.
At what point are we going to realise that the purpose of education has changed. As Chris mentions ‘the model in which students come to school as essentially empty vessels waiting to be filled by the teacher – is hopelessly flawed and outdated in this day and age’

The education system is still based around being able to memorise every possible fact, an assumption that was valid when access to information was limited. I too recall that the encyclopaedia was the be all and end all to research. If it wasn’t in there then it didn’t exist.
Student’s today can simply type into a search engine and end up with over 1 million possible pages. The real ability is for that student to be able to sort the reliable information from the rubbish.

Unfortunately the education system hasn’t caught on to this yet and therefore students will need to continue to memorise facts hoping that in their last days of Year 12 they can remember it all before the ‘real world’ awaits them. As teachers we can help them make that transition….

Image: ‘i’m lovin it‘
www.flickr.com/photos/82705724@N00/125950315

 Imagine a world where a cow has an internet protocol address. Sounds crazy doesn’t it. Well welcome to today. According to Sean Dodson the next wave of the internet is coming. Wave 1 was the World Wide Web on the computer. Wave 2 is the current wave of mobile internet and the 3rd wave will be the internet of the thing.
The internet is currently nearing its capacity of IP addresses and therefore will require a new version. IP version 6 will allow every single person on earth the ability to have a personal network the size of todays current internet. Just imagine 6 billion personal networks each the size of todays current internet. This new wave of the internet will allow computers to turn on and off appliances at home from a remote location – some buildings have similar technology already available. THis would just further expand on it. The example given is that a smoke detector goes off and immediately the computer sends a signal to all electrical appliances to turn off and the power in the house to shut down. It all sounds incredible but are we headed for an iRobot type of world?
I guess if this technology is just around the corner and computers will be able to accomplish these sorts of tasks is direct instruction likely to be valid? The world is changing so fast that skills are more important than knowledge – after all if you have the skills you can find the knowledge.

As debate continues in politics about Australia’s EDUCATION REVOLUTION I fear that sane teaching practice will be pushed to the side and rather technology will be key. I fear that because the technology is expensive and will have been put into the classrooms the politics of the situation will take control and teachers will be using technology just for the sake of it.
In an article by Jamie McKenzie they spoke about good teaching practice choosing the learning outcomes first and which tools would BEST support these outcomes. If a technology is appropriate then by all means use it.
Technology may not always be the most appropriate method but I fear that with the introduction of computers to all school students the technology will become the priority and then teachers must work out how to make the learning fit the technology.

Often in my KLA of Business Studies, Commerce and Economics we discuss if there is benefit using the ASX’s Sharemarket Game. I personally agree with what Joel wrote in his blog. 

The relevance of the game is limited when you take into account that the Investing option of the syllabus is to be taught in a period of 15-25 hours.  The game takes much longer than this from start to finish and would only be relevant if you were undertaking that option at the particular time.
Many teachers would be unaware of the specifics of the share market and why movements occur and in what direction this would impact on the market. As someone with experience in this area I often struggle to grasp the underlying mechanics of the market, so I struggle to see how a teacher with no significant experience in dealing with the stock exchange and associated products e.g hedge funds, derivative trades etc would be able to use the game as a learning aide.
Unless the teacher has a detailed knowledge of the market this activity can never be more than a game, one which could be taught in the space of 20 mins as the only concept is that of buying and selling.

Image: ‘Motivation‘
www.flickr.com/photos/29174414@N00/344323226

I just finished reading an article by Shiang-Kwei Wang and Seungyeon Han from The University of Georgia on methods of motivating students and feel it offers practical suggestions based around constructivist learning.

The so called 6 C’s of motivation are Choice, Challenge, Control, Collaboration, Constructing meaning and Consequences. Whilst I find that the methods above could create engaging classes I believe that different students have different learning styles and may struggle when faced with creating and constructing their own learning.
I find that students have opinions on the subject and whether or not it is boring/ exciting long before they enter the classroom. Even an interesting activity on a boring topic will struggle to motivate students.
I tried a similar method on my prac and found that the freedom offered to students was too much for some and they couldnt use self control to stay on task. I feel there is definite benefits in utilising the 6 C’s method but I feel it may be more useful with more academic classes where students have the ability to  critically analyse.

I just read a great post that was actually voted most influential post from 2007.
The list that Karl put into his posting was perfect. My university colleagues and I have discussed this very point – Is it ok to be a technologically illiterate teacher? I thought it was clear that it’s not, but having been into schools on prac its not just acceptable but I would say the norm. With all due respect to the university Im currently studying at – the other conversation that comes up is that the idea of using technology is great but how do I? There is no technology training. I hear often that colleagues arent sure of how to use certain technology and they arent sure where to learn. I think all education degrees should have a training component on the basic use of overheads, data projectors, powerpoint etc otherwise many teachers will never learn to use the technologies available.

Obtained from: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=gQp7ZDtR0z4
Original film is Billy Madison (1995) created by Universal Studios

Reading Papert’s address on Constructionism vs. Instructionism made me reflect on my own time at school as a student. Papert made this address in the 1980′s and mentions that he doesn’t know whats in store over the next 10 or 20 years but he envisages that technology will play a major part in education. Unfortunately I have seen those years since his initial address and whilst technology has made major impacts on life it hasn’t integrated into learning as effectively as possible.

I was fortunate enough to attend a school where technology was readily available but I don’t think it was used effectively. I think this was because the focus was always on Instructing students rather than allow students to make sense of concepts in ways relevant to themselves, using a constructionist approach.

Within the Social Sciences ( my Key Learning Areas) many of the concepts can be learnt using a constructionist view. Within Commerce students learn about Running a Business. Many students would have no exposure to this which could create real problems in trying to instruct key content. An option that many schools use is Market day/ week where students create their own businesses and source and sell products so that they can construct relevant learning.

There will always be a need for direct instruction but students will need time to create their own development of understanding.

I just read Romeo’s address to the Australian Computers in Education Conference and thought – Brilliant idea’s but will it catch on. I must admit I am a little bit cynical of all this technology in education. I’ll rephrase that – I’m cynical about teachers using the technology in education.

I hope I can be the sort of teacher the kids at Plainville speak about – someone who cares and structures work in a creative way that engages students. I will try and get there but who’s coming with me?