Dramatic engagement that leads to understanding complex ideas

Brian Edmiston (from Ohio State University) offered a session at the Te Toi Tupu hui in Hamilton. Brian is a professor of drama in education. He has a focus on both the practical and the scholarly and looks into how we can build engagement at the same time as mediating complex learning. As such, he is studying ways of enhancing learning with active and dramatic approaches – across disciplines. In particular, he aims to encourage higher order thinking and increasing leaners' understanding of complex ideas.

Brian has his roots in Ireland, and now has his home in America. As such, he has a bi-cultural view of the world, and has a good understanding of the differences between dialogue and monologue. In monologue, people and the institutions that give them authority, seem to treat other people as objects that can be used and discarded. Shutting down dialogue because of a sense of superiority is negative. Dialogue, in contrast creates conditions where people can recognise the conditions for people to reach out to one another.

Edmiston, says that "challenging authority is something that children need to learn to do, when it's the "right thing to do". Dialogue doesn't necessarily mean the use of the spoken or written work, but rather it is something that can happen even where there is no shared 'language', but there is shared human experiences. Teachers need to make sure that the conditions exist for dialogue, and Edmiston suggests that this transformation of learning spaces "needs to be honoured and valued; it's never on a test".
The physical space is a fundamental aspect of this process, whereby desks can create barriers. On the other hand, sitting in a circle without physical barriers can open up the opportunity for dialogue and equal contributions - where everyone wants to learn. "In too many classrooms students are bored to death" because they aren't engaged and don't feel empowered to contribute, and do not feel included.

Responsiveness to immediate needs is also essential. If a learner has had a traumatic experience, or who has been involved in family commitments, then acknowledging this and giving the person the space is as important as providing opportunities for equal engagement.

Edmiston's second value is "We're all in this together". Shared stories are an important part of learning and dialogue, especially if there is a "big problem" to be solved. It can lead to deep engagement. However, something needs to happen - there needs to be something to solve - "a big problem that we're going to dialogue about".  For example, some of the problems in Shakespeare's Macbeth - "should you do what your wife tells you?", "what do you do if your friend kills someone".

One of the points Edmiston made was that "we must want our students to achieve friendship". He referred to Maxine Greene's words:

Our classrooms ought to be nurturing and thoughtful and just all at once; they ought to pulsate with multiple conceptions of what it is to be human and alive. They ought to resound with the voices of articulate young people in dialogues always incomplete because there is always more to be discovered and more to be said. We must want our students to achieve friendship [and citizenship] as each one stirs to wide-awakeness, to imaginative action, and to renewed consciousness of possibility. (Releasing the Imagination, by Maxine Greene, Ph.D.).

Many of our learners are articulate, but are not much interested in dialogue apart from with their friends. So, shared stories, with problems that students care about, and can dialogue about, can help mediate complex learning. It's about understanding that people can be caught in difficult situations where blurry lines and double binds are the norm.

Edmiston closed by saying that "all we can do is try to understand each other, and try to do our best" - "in dialoguing problems...where no-one is excluded, this gives me hope that vital and transforming events can take place".

Images

• A French-speaking Canadian volunteer helps two Haitian students with their English. The volunteer was in Haiti with the volunteer group EDV to help recovery efforts after the earthquake in early June 2010. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
• Jack and Jill (nursery rhyme) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Why we need to keep asking the questions: Innovation and possible impact on health

For every sizeable innovation there are detractors and advocates. Think, for example, the television in the late 1950s, 60s and 70s. When it initially became available and affordable for many people, was going to open up education for the world (think Open University programmes from the UK, and the City Colleges of Chicago in the US). On the other hand, detractors felt it was undermining literacy skills, amongst other things. Newton Minow, in 1961, called television “a vast wasteland” (you can hear an extract from his speech here).

Hindsight now indicates that TV has not revolutionised the face of education, and people still read books.

The thing is - to have balance, we need both sides, and all the opinions in between - to ensure they are robust discussions about innovations that may, potentially, be game-changers, or harmful. We also need folks to keep re-assessing and re-visiting these discussions - to challenge what can otherwise become assumptions. The danger is that we can blindly assume that what science is apparently indicating is reliable; take for instance, Hormone Replacement Therapy. What initially appears to be a no-brainer positive, can sometimes turn out to be way less cut and dried, and on the other hand, what can appear to be negative, turn out to have some previously un-thought of benefits).

Bearing all of this in mind, this is what I suspect has been happening in the case of wifi. Which brings me to Wifi and tinfoil hats: An evidential approach (a post that was brought to my attention by Glen Davis). Recently, at Te Horo school, on the Kapiti Coast in New Zealand, wifi was recently turned off. It is all somewhat complex, with a number of sides to the story. The end result, though, is that the wifi has been switched off and I am left wondering, to what end?

Paul Matthews, the author of the post, indicates that intensity of EMFs was the key to the debate, and refers to Jonathan Brewer'sInside Telecommunications blog that includes the following table:

	Type of Radiation	Power Level
	Potential to be Harmful (heat can be felt)	200W/kg
	Maximum Permitted in New Zealand	4.00W/kg
	Highest Radiation Cell Phones (Avg of 20)	1.43W/kg
	50 Watt Cell Phone Transmitter at 10m distance	0.365W/kg
	Lowest Radiation Cell Phones (Avg of 20)	0.32W/kg
	Wi-Fi Device Average between 0.5 and 2m distance	0.0057W/kg

Matthews goes on to say that if you go by this table, “wifi would have to be 35,000x as strong as its current average to be potentially harmful to humans” (source). He also refers to the World Health Organisation's EMF Project, which has concluded after a review of over 25,000 scientific articles and research projects" that "Despite extensive research, to date there is no evidence to conclude that exposure to low level electromagnetic fields is harmful to human health" (source).

In addition, “the US National Cancer Institute[state that] there is no evidence from studies of cells, animals, or humans that radiofrequency energy can cause cancer” (source). In other words, “Following very comprehensive and ongoing research, there is absolutely no evidence of a link between exposure to wifi transmission and adverse health effects” [emphasis in the original] (source).

So - should everyone be turning off their wifi? It appears not. Extensive research to date is not indicating any cause for alarm. As, the author of the post says, “Hopefully other communities around New Zealand will consider the science first and foremost” (source). However, that’s not to say ‘case closed’. Rather, let’s keep the conversations and the research current and open.

Would be great to read your comments and reactions.  

Image: 'Surfing the web', http://www.flickr.com/photos/44302262@N08/5426170352. Found on flickrcc.net

Related articles

• NZ school removes wifi over health concerns

A man who influenced the world: Nelson Mandela

I would like to acknowledge the loss of Madiba - Nelson Mandela. There have been many tributes to his life, and I encourage you to dip into some of them. He was also a great advocate for, and supporter of, education for all, saying that “education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world”.

Nelson Mandela was a fundamental influence to my thinking and beliefs about racial equality, leadership, and standing up for what you believe - even when you may need to pay the ultimate price. He remains an inspiration.

While he is no longer with us in person, his power, his influence - and what he achieved - will live on.
You may want to watch this speech that Nelson Mandela gave at Harvard in 1998. The audio quality is poor, but the speech itself is a testament to the unswerving commitment, as well as the great sense of humour, Madiba had. Highly recommended. 



Image: Nelson Mandela Day at ProjectArt, Harlem. cc licensed ( BY NC SA ) flickr photo by Africa Renewal: http://flickr.com/photos/africa-renewal/7599667424/

Related articles

• Madiba: 15 Things You May Not Have Known About Nelson Mandela
• Obama: Nelson Mandela Stands Among the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln & MLK
• His name is title enough: Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela

Efficiency but not necessarily motivation: Student attitudes to using mobile devices in their learning

The infographic below was developed by the Australia-based organisation, Open Colleges. The things that caught my attention were some of the statistics, which, while fairly meaningless on their own, do present an attitudinal 'picture'.

• 59% of students said that they would like to bring in their own mobile devices to enhance learning
• 86% of students believe they study more efficiently with access to mobile technologies
• 77% of teachers believe that access to technology boosts student motivation
• 76% of teachers feel it enhances the material that is being learned

It was interesting that the students didn't report increased levels of engagement or motivation, but rather focussed on efficiency and organisation, which raised some questions for me around 'how' students were being encouraged to learn in these tech enabled spaces.

The infographic also reports on the results of a study whereby when teachers integrated digital games into lessons, students raised their average test scores from 79.1% to 91.5%.

The picture sketched here is one of increased engagement and motivation...although some of the bigger questions around, for instance, community involvement and culturally responsive design are not mentioned, and the development of blended learning sessions and approaches is only alluded to (e.g. there is a brief mention of Problem Based Learning).

It would be good to hear what your reactions was, overall, to the infographic, but also what else you feel is missing.

Fear underpinned by nostalgia? Opinions of what the Facebook generation need to learn

Do we really need children to go 'cold turkey' from their mobile devices? Is there a requirement for 'book camps' with printed materials only? Is there a middle ground for the Internet generation? Or do we need to re-think many of our biases about how we feel learning is 'done best'?

As I listened to the following podcast (What does the Facebook generation need to learn? - MP3 - from 2011) some of the points of view expressed felt to me like fear, that was underpinned by a sense of nostalgia.

Some aspects of learning and life  have fundamentally changed since some of the world became 'connected'.

Siemens (2004) identifies behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism as the three theories of learning most often used to inform the design and creation of learning experiences. These theories, however, “were developed in a time when learning was not impacted through technology” [emphasis not in the original] (Para. 1). Instead, Siemens argues, we need to think about the flow of information in our current knowledge economy as the flow of oil through an oil pipe in an industrial economy - the difference though is that “the pipe is more important than the content within the pipe. Our ability to learn what we need for tomorrow is more important than what we know today‟ (2004).

As you might have guessed from the name connectivism is based on the idea that all learning starts with a connection. The connection can be neural, conceptual, and/or social (Siemens, 2008), and learning is held to be “the ability to construct and traverse connections” (Downes, 2007). In other words, a learner makes sense of existing knowledge and reinterprets it in a way that fits within their existing knowledge framework, and in the process connects, disconnects, and reconnects “knowledge fragments through knowledge creation” (Littlejohn, 2011, Para. 3). To help facilitate connections and information sharing while encouraging life-long learning in the individual as well as the group, learning occurs within learning ecologies, communities and networks (Siemens, 2003).

Framed within connectivism, formal education systems appear flawed, because they are “trying to achieve a task (learning) with a tool (teaching) in an artificial knowledge construct (course) (Siemens, 2005, Para. 1).

So - return to the debate - I really don't feel it's about whether we should be denying young learners access to mobile devices. Rather it is a two-pronged momentum that is required; the first is a focus on encouraging learners to critically think about how they are using their device, building their relationships, and how they are constructing their understandings. And the second is to take a long hard look at the underlying biases that are informing the opinions of the folks in charge of making education policies, and shaping learning experiences on a day-to-day basis.

Your thoughts?

The debate panel included:
Chair: Dr Anthony Seldon, Master, Wellington College
Panel to include: Dr Sarah Churchwell, Senior Lecturer in American Literature and Culture, University of East Anglia; Professor Niall Ferguson, Harvard University, LSE, Author, ‘Civilization’ and Columnist, Newsweek; Harvey Goldsmith, Chairman, Ignite; Jenni Russell, Commentator, The Sunday Times, The Guardian and London Evening Standard

References:

• Littlejohn, A. (2011). Collective learning and charting. Retrieved November 6, 2012 from http://littlebylittlejohn.com/collective-learning-and-charting/.
• Siemens, G. (2011). Sensemaking artifacts. Retrieved November 3, 2012 from http://www.connectivism.ca/?p=336.
• Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 2(1). Retrieved on 5 November 2012 from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm.
• Siemens, G. (2006). Connectivism: Learning theory or pasttime for the self-amused.  Retrieved  5 November, 2012, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism_self-amused.htm. 
• Siemens, G. (2008). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. Paper 105: University of Georgia IT Forum. Retrieved July 1, 2001, from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper105/Siemens.pdf
• Siemens, G. (2005). Designing ecosystems versus designing learning. Retrieved November 7, 2012, from http://www.connectivism.ca/?cat=8
• Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved February 6, 2007, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
• Siemens, G. (2003). Learning ecology, communities, and networks: Extending the classroom. Retrieved February 28, 2007, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/learning_communities.htm

Image: Young girl with smart phone. cc licensed ( BY ) flickr photo by "PictureYouth": http://flickr.com/photos/45688888@N08/5915484733/

Related articles

• Connectivism: a tool or a theory?
• Connectivism

Looking at learner success through a cultural lens: Iwi and whānau 'speak'

Melanie Riwai-Couch opened the Te Toi Tupu hui by talking a little bit about the work she is doing with iwi. A lot of the things she is looking it is around iwi and whānau 'voice'.

Melanie is from a bicultural marriage at a time when it was unusual, and when her parents split, her father brought her up. Growing up with strong Māori roots gave her an interesting perspective on life. She lives and works in Ngāi Tahu, but does not claim Ngāa Tahu in her ancestry. There is a whole other world when it comes to iwi.

Melanie also teaches at the kura, and she discovered all of these things that didn't work for me. The students tried really hard, but there were a lot of things that kept tripping them up. For example, the letter 'i' - is it always a capital letter? So why doesn't me, he, and she have a capital letter too. It was a way to peel back the cultural layers of the spelling traditions, and the cultural shaping that underpins them. She went to the community partners to see if she could find student teachers who would come into the kura and to sit with the children while they read.

The initiative resulted in several hundred hours of extra reading for the students - and this, Melanie feels, has helped students create a love of reading. There was a sustained shift of at least 1 to 1.5 stanine (PAT), and up to 4 to 5 stanines. This led to Melanie to ask the question, "In what ways are iwi and schools working together to improve Māori student achievement". Students also grow in confidence ("I'll probably succeed in a lot of stuff like getting a degree at University" - Māia, Year 8), and are happy to speak to pretty much anyone.

Parents also say "success for them is to be standing strong and confident and humble in anything and everything they chose to do and to be able to make mistakes and learn from them". And an Iwi education representative said that "it's that whole person" that is key, and another that "Maori student success is when student are grounded in who they are and where they come from whilst achieving success in whatever field they choose no matter where in the world they are" (Iwi Education Representative). Potential is not something that is based in the future, but it is something that students are 'being' and realising.

Three case studies (Ngā Puna Korero) have informed her thinking to date. The sort of thing that is emerging are the importance of sustaining high trust relationships, and this means that, in part, it's working with iwi in the way that iwi want to be worked with. In part this means working within communities of practice that tend to be more responsive to the needs of the participants. One of the students said "people with two languages like us are gifted, bi-lingual and bi-literate. We are talented and clever" (Ruamano, Year 10). Not all iwi receive money from the ministry for education. The purpose of Iwi Education Project funding is "to build iwi capability to engage in and contribute to the education system and the education of their whānau and hapu. This appropriation is primarily used to produce iwi education strategies, reo strategies and implementation plans; and to deliver iwi education project" (Ministry of Education, 2013, p. 1). However, there are tensions between expectations and responsibility - i.e. whose responsibility is it to implement some aspects of an initiative. The 5 iwi with the main schools include Ngai Tahu (579), Ngati Whatua (397), and Ngati Maniapoto (144). The amount of funding, compared with the geographical area or the schools they work with, however, was not scaled to the funding received...ranging from $40,000 per school to $193 per school that they work with. Resourcing is therefore an issue.

The best way to influence the impact schools is, Melanie proposes, through working with organisations such as Te Toi Tupu. Ideally, it is a case of contacting and working with all stakeholders...something that isn't possible if resourcing isn't sufficient. At the end of the day, however, a student has succeeded when students have the confidence and skills to come back to work with iwi. It's about young children building a sense of where they are from, who they are 'from', what they are doing now (as a whole, culturally shaped person), and also where they are heading next.

 Images

• 'hapu'u' http://www.flickr.com/photos/37718675756@N01/6180648 Found on flickrcc.net
•  'Creation and Consumption'  http://www.flickr.com/photos/49053756@N03/8120316401 Found on flickrcc.net

Related articles

• Education investment priority for Ngai Tahu (radionz.co.nz)
• Ngai Tahu assures Ngati Kahungunu over Ruataniwha dam (radionz.co.nz)

MOOCs as a convenient means of establishing patterns of power and authority. Thoughts?

A lot of things went through my mind as I read Denis McGrath's post, Are Hi-tech solutions contingent on Lo-tech solutions? Many of these thoughts were loosely related wonderings (so please be patient ;-p).

Denis starts from the "premise that all artifacts we use - are man made, therefore they are in essence human developed technologies". Although he doesn't state that man-made = tangible objects, this got me thinking, especially as later he mentions human speech as a technology. Can something that is (certainly prior to writing) intangible therefore be considered an artifact? If 'no', can it therefore be considered a technology? It is certainly a tool, though. So, I did a bit of digging around (as you do).

The Free Dictionary defines artifact in four different ways" "An object produced or shaped by human craft", "Something viewed as a product of human conception or agency rather than an inherent element", "A structure or feature not normally present but visible as a result of an external agent or action", and "An inaccurate observation, effect, or result, especially...in scientific investigation or from experimental error".

These definitions (while not all relevant to the context), I feel help illustrate the complex interplay of the notion of technologies as artifacts as objects shaped by human craft, and as intangibles that are a product of human conception or agency. 

This wider take on artifacts perhaps helps to provide and insight into what happens when we use technologies, compared with consideration of the technology itself. As such, social networks, online communities of practice etc, can all be considered artifacts. When the notion of artifacts as both tangible and intangible comes into play, there are further considerations around the concept that:

technical things have political qualities. At issue is the claim that the machines, structures, and systems of modern material culture can be accurately judged not only for their contributions to efficiency and productivity and their positive and negative environmental side effects, but also for the ways in which they can embody specific forms of power and authority (p. 121, Winner, 1986).

The examples Winner uses illustrate how intended consequences, are frequently underpinned by unintended aspects related to control, as well as political and social effects. As an example, consider the uptake and adaptation of the original design of MOOCs (that has its roots in Connectivism)  by large universities and businesses. It might indeed be extrapolated that

specific features in the design or arrangement of a ... system [are providing] ... a convenient means of establishing patterns of power and authority in a given setting (p. 134, Winner, 1986).

While this in itself remains a controversial suggestion, I do feel that it may offer insights into how and why technologies have (or haven't) been adopted by formal education systems and institutions, and in turn why wide scale adoption has been patchy and fraught with issues.

Thoughts?

Reference Winner, L. (1986). Do artifacts have politics. In L. Winter (Ed.), The whale and the reactor: a search for limits in an age of high technology (pp. 19-39). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Image Neolithic artifacts. CC licenced. Wikipedia. http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:N%C3%A9olithique_0001.jpg

Related articles

• Connectivism (nakeshajones2.wordpress.com)