kamukapati's blog

Last post.

I AM GOING TO MISS THE IPHONE :-(

Apart from that, it has been a very interesting course and I have gained a lot from my peers, Vickel, Thom and the readings. Also getting the chance to use the iphone has been a real learning curve and an eye opener to what we could possibly achieve with our students and some interesting thoughts about empowering student ownership and responsibility.  I have enjoyed experimenting with different web 2.0 tools and having the opportunity to participate as a student and also facilitation possibilities from a teachers perspective.

Feedback for my 2nd assignment:

Apart from the first three comments that I think are mine?  the rest are very accurate in the fact that my frame work was unclear, and it would be fair to say that my frame work probably did not exist in the manner required.  In reflection and looking back at my postings it is an aspect that I my self was still unclear about.  As an educator I know the underlying beliefs and principles as to why we are heading in the direction we are and the benefits to both teacher and student  but I realize now that this needs to be made more clear and structured.  I am confident we have the right concepts and tools to generate a community of practice that fits my current group, but I think my struggle with the frame work is because I am trying to set a foundational frame work that will start from the first year then leading to industry training over a period of three to four years.  It is a four year cycle to complete an apprenticeship and our completion rate is very low and I think a contributing factor to improving this is how we structure our first year program from when have them on a full time basis.  I believe we have a prime opportunity to work collaboratively with industry organisations and Diploma staff to set core learning skills that can assist them through out there journey, using technology and sound fundamentals for a Community of Practice (COP).  A prime example is the COP for our SLT course and the substantial amount of successful communication and learning that took place between peers, I really enjoyed that and it is an avenue I am hoping to engage our learners with.

 Key new knowledge gained for me is Vygotsky zone of proximal Development and the fundamentals that almost feel specific to our learners, although I realize it is for a wider community.  This is an important aspect to our frame work, understanding where we are, where we need to be, and what we can build on to eventual empowering students negotiation and enquiry.

To conclude, I am going to work closely with the Diploma staff and our apprenticeship coordinators to design a frame work that suite our apprenticeship journey because this is ultimately the goal for our learners and any frame work designed for my level four course needs to build towards the students continued studies and work experience in industry.  The tools I have used are vehicles we hope will successfully facilitate this from the initial stages when we have them full time to hopefully engage the learners to facilitate there own COP in an industry environment.  

Before enrolling into this course I was heavily involved in development work with technology integration, and I now have a better view of the overall picture and the focus that we need as a department.  We are now currently working on a research proposal to explore the impacts of institute training engrossed in technology and how this effects industry training communities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

presentation assignment 2

Frame work carpentry on Prezi

post entry 10

Rethinking University Teaching

Reference:

Diana, L. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching. New York, Routledge Farmer.

post entry 9

Do traditional class room environments work?

It is very interesting watching the body language of students in comparison to learning on the practical site and learning in the class room.  When we are on site students are engaged interacting with each other, discussing issues and constantly asking questions.  But when we are in the class room. the students tend to “not” ask frequent questions, “not” engage in natural discussion, “not” discuss issue.  Don't get me wrong, I run lots of group activities, peer discussion and questioning session, but interaction most definitely does not come as naturally as it does when they are on site, my students will ask questions in theory class to satisfy there needs or inquiries of understanding, but there is a serious short fall in regards to natural interaction, discussion and inquiry.
I vividly remember a particular theory session where we had an engaging class activity in small groups, then each group presenting to the class and there was a good buzz happening, lots of noise, lots of discussion then after that, I covered some of the technical information related........the students body language changed instantly, shoulders dropped, there previously wide open eyes narrowed, and there was a sudden deafening silence.  I knew instantly that I had lost there attention.  We still need to cover the technical topics, and we still need the opportunity to switch between facilitator and educator, but how can we do this better?

It’s important that we understand the role of technology.  Clark (1983)  Claims that technology is simply a vehicle that delivers instructions, but does not them selves influence student achievement. Bonk & Reynolds (1997) also mentions that it is not the technology its self that offers quality learning rather it is the manner it presents strategies for the learner to develop.  If we look at it in that respect, then we are offering a package that allows facilitation for learning and empowering the students to learn freely.  Why do we need to structure theory lessons and practical lessons?  Why cannot we not be flexible with theory and practical?

We are now going to construct an outdoor class room with a 2 touch smart board projecting outwards with students sitting outside in the environment that best suites there learners needs.  We can now talk about things theoretically and within a split second they can view the actual component or aspect we are trying to relate to.  We are now positioned away from the traditional class room and the emotional connections from past experiences.


(This is only a draft drawing with lots of changes being made and obviously the cladding will be completed)

(Drawing by Joseph Pitovao)

The proposal was brought forward to management and the idea was warmly received and a budget has been given to construct the building with all new material and an inclusion of a 2 touch board (like a smart board but more durable for outside use).  Our manager has always been really open to ideas and open to changes and if this prototype goes well we will look at constructing another for the lower car park.  We have just had the material delivered this week and construction will begin on Monday using three students from each practical group then rotating so all students are involved.

As educators it is important that we continuously look for new and innovative anagogical approaches. (Benson, Lawler, & Whitworth, 2008) talks about innovation and being exposed to new things, and not staying in the same place.  He goes on to say that experts determine the content but we as educators should be allowed the freedom and flexibility to determine how we deliver that content.

On our practical site we have two different sites within the one compound.  There is a lower car park and an upper car park and they both function at different stages of the house construction.  One group starts at the beginning of the year and the other starts mid year, this means that when the mid year group starts the other group is already half way through the construction of there house project.  There is  a lot that the students can learn from each other but because of health and safety reasons it is not always appropriate to take all your students to the one sight, but what if they could stream live videos on the lower car park and the students at the top car park can watch it live and we can also review it in more depth.  At any moment we can either do practical work then switch to theory without being restricted to a time table, obviously weather is a issue with being out doors but you cant have it all.  We can more appropriately judge when students need theory discussion and then switch instantly back to practical to put theory into action.  I often run theory sessions outside using a white board with students sitting on planks or saw stools, and they seems to enjoy this environment, but with the 2 touch board we can now integrate technology to best suite the learners needs.  Student discussion between other groups can also benefit from this because we are not restricted to a class room or a specific time table.

I would like to have more connectivity between the iphone and the 2 touch board, but that is some thing I need to look into more.




references:

Benson, A., Lawler, C., & Whitworth, A. (2008). Rules, roles and tools: Activity theory and the comparative study of e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(3), 456-467.

Bonk, C. J., & Reynolds, T. H. (1997). Learner centred Web instruction for higher-order thinking, teamwork, and apprentiship.


Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media.

 

post entry 8

zones of proximal development

Williams (2010) takes a direct quote from Vygotsky:

"The only ‘good learning’ is that which is in advance of development. For us, it is far more important to teach the child how to eat than to feed him. In just the same way, in education it is far more important to teach the child how to think than to communicate various bits of knowledge to him." — Vygotsky

In discussing Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development Harland (2003) raises three important areas of inquiry.

(in the Zone of Current Development).
Harland (2003) makes strong reference to a key factor in learning being that of the students current knowledge, ascertaining this and teaching accordingly.  Using problem based learning with tutor guidance and through observation eventually allowing the learners Independence into constructing there own Problem based learning.  Harland mentions the importance of allowing for a genuine environment that is relevant, realistic and engaging rather then one created by the tutor.   Because our students physically build a house that is eventually sold to a client, we are in an ideal situation to form a “real” learning environment, but we still need to expose them to all the key elements that make it “real”, such as direct responsibility for the project and allowing them freedom to make error in judgement.  This is where deep development and critical analysis can take place  (in the Zone of Proximal Development).  This is also the part that we want to be able to capture and re use, re discuss and re evaluate.  In the last area of inquiry Harland discusses (the more capable peer) when using problem based learning and the value of peer discussion. The common metaphor ‘scaffolding’ is again used and how the teacher will help scaffold the learning then eventually dissolve so that new scaffolding/knowledge can be built for the next generation.  

A quote found in Harland (2003)
Encouraging students to take responsibility for their own learning is very important but I think there is, perhaps, a fine balance between chaos and students learning for themselves.  It is a fine balancing act as facilitators to the students’ learning process that is difficult to achieve.  I think it takes an amount of understanding and empathy towards students and to the multiplicity of ways in which students learn Tutor (1999)

I agree that we should let student peers help, discuss, and teach each other, and often through discussing something you only half understand with some one can then often lead to a learner fully understanding.   But it is a fine balance between chaos and students learning for themselves and diagnostic teaching is now something we have to pay very close attention

Harland, T. (2003). "Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development amd Problem-based Learning:  linking a theoretical concept with practice through action research." Teaching in Higher education

8(2): 263-272.

       

Williams, S. (2010). "Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development." from http://www.oriontransfer.co.nz/blog/2010-05/zone-of-proximal-development/index.

       

post entry 7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlDs7UlkyKI

post entry 6

Ashton-Warner,(2009) talks in depth about the importance of associating the individuals’ past with education.   She believes that in order for educators to maximize student learning we need to understand what is important to the learner and create or use words that will be remembered by past associations.  This allows the individual to look with their inner eye created by their own perception from past experience.

An interesting view is a comparison between Learning and Formal education as mentioned in the interview below with Joi Ito by Henrik Moltke (2010).  He talks about his own experiences and how he was a really good learner but could not be formally educated and actually failed in the educational system.  I wonder if it is valid to consider the learners past experiences in the current setting to understand how they learn best.

Joi Ito on (informal) learning, freedom and the web from Henrik Moltke on Vimeo.

I like his discussion around learning versus formal education.  I am fortunate to be teaching in a “hands on” trade, it offers a lot of opportunities for learning through physically viewing and doing, then critical reflection can happen, both as a group and as an individuals.  At the moment we are doing this with our current class, but we still have to cover a heavy amount of content and theory based assessment events due to NZQA credits that we claim, so the students will participate in reflective processing then still have to do a large amount of theory based.  Theoretically speaking I would like to see a system put in place that measures and rewards the learning process directly, but measuring learning could be very subjective especially when providing evidence to external moderators.



ref:

Ashton-Warner, S. (2009). The Kiss and the Ghost. Wellington, Auckland: NZCER Press.

Ito, J. (2010). "Joi Ito on (informal) learning, freedom and the web." from http://vimeo.com/15234915.

post entry 5

What is the value of reflection online?

Some key words are mentioned by Brockbanks and McGill (1998).  Transformational learning, critical learning, and life long learning.  There is mention of “deep” as apposed to surface learning and to me this is the strength in reflection and attributes to life long learning.  Deep learning is described and quoted in Brockbanks and McGill (1998) originally by Marton, 1975:137.

those who succeed best.....seem to have an approach that aims beyond the written or spoken discourse itself towards the message the discourse is intended to communicate and these students feel themselves to be the agents of learning.

As an educational institute we can achieve a higher level of reflective processing through web 2.0 tools to assist our community of enquiry and what of the value if the students themselves feel they are agents of learning?
They also put common terms into more specific meaning, such as “learning process” meaning the context and conditions in which learning takes place.  And “relationship” meaning current circumstances that we (the teacher) and learners can actively reflect upon the issues and material before us.  I raise these issues because as an educator, if you can see the true value in reflection and its intended use in a community of inquiry then why are we not all facilitating such environments?

Brockbanks and McGill (1998) mentions that creating effective dialogue in reflective situations requires the teacher to play a different role to the student.  The teacher is the facilitator allowing the focus to be on the learner and allowing the learner to undertake a learning process of understanding.  This is not to say we as educators do not participate in the reflective processing but understanding the context and the current situation before we engage ensuring that we have a positive impact rather than dominating dialogue, after all we must be able to sustain a positive emotional connection from the students to hopefully break away from single loop learning connecting variables towards double loop learning.  Argyris and Schön (1978: 2-3) use a simple analogy to explain single loop and double loop learning.  

When the error detected and corrected permits the organization to carry on its present policies or achieve its presents objectives, then that error-and-correction process is single-loop learning. Single-loop learning is like a thermostat that learns when it is too hot or too cold and turns the heat on or off. The thermostat can perform this task because it can receive information (the temperature of the room) and take corrective action. Double-loop learning occurs when error is detected and corrected in ways that involve the modification of an organization’s underlying norms, policies and objectives.

During this reading I could not help but think about our current department situation.  It is often said that staff resistance to integrating web 2.0 tools is from lack of understanding, but I would hope that it is more from lack of understanding the value rather than understand the tools.  There is a significant difference, and in reflection this is a critical message that is not being shared well enough in our department.  I have spent countless hours promoting, sharing web 2.0 tools within our department when I think I need a stronger focus on “why”.


Reference:

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978) Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective,Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.

Brockbank Anne, M. I. (1998). Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher Education. Buckingham, SHRE and Open University Press, .

post entry 4

post entry 3

Digital natives are here

I clicked on a hyper link provided by our facilitators as suggested readings, it opened up and I automatically clicked the print button.  As I read the printed version I begin to realise that I possibly fall into a  digital immigrant category.  Sheely (2008) compares the paper written by Prensky (2001a and 2001b) on how digital immigrants will use technology but find a frame work that is comfortable for him or her, such as printing information found from the Internet before reading.  Comparatively a digital native is comfortable with hyperlink, parrellel-processing and multi tasking and preferably would view images before text.  The digital native generation is here now, and the digital immigrant is an ever decreasing minority.  This is not to say that a digital immigrant cannot bridge the Information technology gap, but Prensky (2001a and 2001b)  suggest that a digital natives thought processing is dramatically different to their  predecessors and they are engaged in another world, staying plugged in, powered up to the digital culture.  

Sheely (2008) suggest that there are a lot of flaws in the research undertaken to construct the meaning of digital natives and would rather refer to this new arrival of students as simply human beings.  He argues that the learning process is nothing new, using constructive thought processing related to past experiences in a current social environment.  In conclusion Sheely agrees that this is a powerful and useful illusion that is having a positive cultural impact.  But warns the focus needs to be on technology being designed into learning environments not technology as the answers and focus, after all good teaching is about motivating students to not only learn, but learn how to learn Leblanc, R (2010) .   Teachers have a huge responsibility to staying current with the learners needs and expectations.  It is not as simple as offering students a laptop or computer, as studies have shown that this does not stop students from falling back into old weak study habits Smith, S (2010). In the present time, we expect that the net generation would require a high demand for technology in teaching and learning, but in the readings of Sheely, S (2008) they are of moderate demands.  A contributing factor could be that a digital native is only a sense of an idea and not yet reached the point of stabilisation, where it is an accepted term in society reaching a norm or becoming  an accepted fact.  If I apply this theory to my current students I would imagine that a third of the class could be categorized as so could digital immigrants, but there will be a time when there is none.

ref:

Sheely, S. (2008). Latour meets the digital natives: What do we really know. Paper presented at the Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? ASCILITE 2008. fromhttp://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/sheely.pdf

Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon,
9(5).http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-
%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants, Part II: Do they really think differently? On the
Horizon, 9(6). http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-
%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf


Dr. Richard W. Leblanc is an associate professor at York University in Toronto.
Reprinted from The Teaching Professor, Vol. 12, no. 6.
Permalink: http://www.facultyfocus.com?p=14577
http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/philosophy-of-teaching/good-teaching-the-top-10-requirements/


August 30, 2010
Technology Hasn’t Helped Students’ Study Skills, Research Finds
By: Steve Smith in Teaching and Learning http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-and-learning/technology-hasnt-helped-students-study-skills-research-finds/?c=FF&t=F100830a