Body Browser – a virtual biology book made by Google

Google is again launching a creative product, namely the Body Browser; a 3D animation program that learns you everything about the human body. This educational tool makes it able to explorer the human body in every ‘layer’. There is for example a view in which only the bones are visible, but also a view that enables you to see all the muscles. Next to that, it labels the names of every body-component.

Different layers in Body Browser

The nice thing of this virtual biology book is that you can look the body from every perspective. You can take a ‘tour’ through the human body, walk around it and stop at every moment. You can use a slide (on the left, see pictures) to make layers more or less visible smoothly, zoom in and out, and move the body in x and y directions. It works in your internet browser, and it is available for everyone (if you are willing to install Google chrome (beta) ;-)). This also means that eventually it could be used through your mobile phone. How cool is that! Although it could maybe use some improvements on for example adding the Latin names of body components (I mean, we did not chose Latin in the medical world for nothing) and maybe some more detail on bone protrusions when you zoom in.

It could (for example) be used as reference work, to look something up easily (for example by physical therapists, I know mine sometimes forgets the names of a bone), but also by students, to obtain new knowledge in the field. Though it might need some ‘scaffolds’ for the latter. It’s important for students to regulate their learning process through different guidance (scaffolding) techniques. So, here is a challenge for teachers and educational scientists!  

Look from different perspectives (left)
and select a muscle to see what it is called (right)

Christmas Story 2.0

With the upcoming holidays in mind and the theme of this blog, I would like to share Christmas story 2.0 with you :).  Particularly just for fun, and it is a different way of story writing. It connects the past to the everyday experiences we have now :). I guess that is a bit like what we are looking for in education as well, bridging certain subject matter to the everyday experiences of students ;-).

Enjoy!

Merry Christmas!

Visiting Microsoft!

Last Friday (12-10-2010) we went to Microsoft in Brussels with 18 educational science students from the University of Twente. The intention was to follow a master class in which we would discover and experience Microsoft’s ‘newest’ technologies and brainstorm about how these new technologies could be used in education.  Petra Fisser also joined and blogged about it during the trip, so you can read a ‘live story’ on her blog! (in Dutch).

We gathered at 5 ‘o’ clock in the morning to drive to Brussels! Very early and still traffic jams, but with some candy, nice music and funny Belgium road signs we made it to Brussels in about 4.5 hours. Unfortunately we got lost In Brussels and needed another hour to find our way to Microsoft. Cheer for the nice road workers who drove us to the right place :)

At Microsoft, we started with a presentation about some new software (
e.g. Photosynth, Bing and software to manage cloud computing. The presentation was made in PowerPoint with the pptPlex add on tool (it works like Prezi). After that we started a tour to discover the newest technologies of Microsoft! The part I really looked forward to. Unfortunately the technologies were not as new as I expected, but maybe my expectations were a bit too unrealistic or too high. It does not mean I didn’t have fun! I like gadgets and stuff like that, so I enjoyed it anyhow! We ended with a workshop in which we thought about educational ideas combined with the technologies we saw during the tour.

The tour

Playing games on the surface table!

I will discuss a few of the technologies we came across with during the tour. We started with the surface table. This is a big touch screen table which allows multi touch (up to 58 different touch-points) and is even able to recognize chips (for example if you lay an ID card on top of the screen). This is a way to log on to a personal account, but in a more natural, user-friendly way. Of course there were also games! The table focuses on collaboration on the same device, which often is harder on a normal pc (more than two people behind one pc is getting difficult). This was not new for me, but I think these tables are fun and foster collaboration because more people are working together in the same, real life, shared space.

After that a touch screen attached to a pc was shown with the earth on it. You can zoom in and zoom out or move around by touching. The argument was that it works intuitively and is more realistic than the materials used in the classroom to show the earth. He talked about these big world maps but seemed to forget that we also have world globes. At least, that is what we used in school! But of course this touch screen has the advantage of zooming in and out to a great amount, which is great! However, this was not as new as I hoped. It would have been really cool if it could make a 3D image of the earth, one which you could walk around.

Controlling the mouse with your eyes. 

After that we saw technology that was developed specifically for less- and disabled people. There was for example a computer that could be controlled just by looking. It recognized your face and used this to move the mouse pointer around the screen. Focusing means double clicking. There was also software that could translate text to Braille and of course a speech program like the one I used before in writing a post. This was really nice!

Interactive whiteboard

Also an interactive whiteboard was present. This did not bring anything new for me. It was showed how the whiteboard could be used but it was a little shallow in my opinion. Just drawing graphs and using a digital ruler to measure distances. Well that is not much different from actually using a real life ruler to measure something, but of course this is more precise and can be saved. I think an interactive whiteboard can be used for more than that. Than the emphasis went to measures to keep control over students using computers in a classroom, for example remote control. This is not necessarily something to use with an interactive whiteboard. I remember using it when I had to help out my little niece years ago. I thought it was a pity that features like this focused so much on controlling the students instead of using this feature for collaboration or to help out. Or give students the right to remote control the computer connected to the interactive whiteboard, to for example, contribute to a concept map creating together, or report findings.

Photo made during the game

Playing a game on the Kinect 

Last I would like to discuss the Xbox kinect! That was about the newest technology standing there, which was really cool. And we could try it out! I saw other people use it, read about it, but never actually did it myself, so that was nice. After getting used to it, I think it will work pretty naturally. Actually I think this (technology reacting on you as a person) is the future. It even made a photo during the game :) 

All and all it was fun but I expected more from the technologies. It was not really as innovative as I thought, but maybe it was newer for others. I thought there would be more focus on distance flexibility; I think this is getting more common to students. For example, last week my boyfriend went shopping for a sweater. While trying it on, he sent me a picture, made with his phone, while wearing it to ask for my opinion. This is something that could also easily adapt to education. I hoped on more extreme examples of new technologies, for example technology combined with intelligent materials…. imagine a touch screen that adapts the feeling of a surface to the image it is showing, tiger, soft fur, stone, hard rough surface, etc. but that again was too farfetched of course :-). 
Anyhow I realy had a good time and it was nice that we could take a look around, so thank you for all the people who were involved from Microsoft and of course the organizers of this trip!

The workshop

The workshop started with a presentation that was focused on that education should be more learner centered, the teacher is a guide and that education should be more concrete and connected to the everyday experiences of students. Something I agree on, but of course again something we hear about everyday for the past few years.  He pushed it a little bit further by stating that the role of the teacher should change to a more coordinative one and that the student is the one determining what he/she wants to learn and when. Teachers should become a kind of ‘hatch’ that redirects students to the right places to learn by composing a tailored ‘learning package’. Then there was a Microsoft promotion talk. After that we brainstormed in groups about how the technologies we came across during the tour could be used in education. Our group had the idea of using technology to support the teacher in guiding students and making these tailored learning packages. In our worked out concept students could discover what they are interested in by, for example, playing games. Based on these interests a teacher could compose a learning package tailored to a student. We worked this out by using the surface table. Students and teachers could use an ID (chip) card to log on and see the data on the account. Teachers could add or remove data to the students. Next to that parents could also be more involved by choosing to add certain data about the student to their account. This is also something that could be used to make a study choice in secondary education.

Teaching teachers about TPACK

In the lasts few posts I wrote about TPACK. Based on these thoughts I worked with three other students in a group on designing a professional development program for teachers during the past few weeks. The program intends to develop the TPACK of primary school teachers. The primary activity is that teachers work together to designing lesson plans for lessons that integrate ICT. In this program we did involve the whole school to foster implementation and curriculum alignment within the school. This not only includes the principal, remedial teacher and school counselor, but also 3th and 4ht year pre-service teachers doing an internship. This way pre- and in-service teacher share their knowledge and experiences while developing TPACK. As mentioned in the earlier post, the T could be a lot of things (materials that support teaching and/or learning). Therefore we narrowed this element down to ‘digital technologies’, focusing on ICT integration in education.

In this post I will reflect on the process we went through to design the professional development program, my experiences in working with TPACK and I will share my ideas about the way teachers can be stimulated to integrate (not just use) digital technology’s in education.

The process

In short, we started with defining context variables (e.g. facilities, infrastructure, culture, etc.), than reviewed the literature on TPACK, factors influencing ICT integration and implementation strategies. After that we designed the program based in the literature findings and context characteristics. To conclude we compared the designed program with other literature findings, for instance the development stages Niess (2009) defined, and developed an evaluation plan to formatively (half way) and summatively evaluate the designed program.

During this process we faced a few challenges, especially since we had to make the context up because we did not have enough time to work with a real one. Luckily we had different disciplines in our design team which really contributed to finding a solution. Our group consisted of a teacher (German), an educational program designer (India) and two students with a background in educational science (Dutch). This assignment showed again that it is important to use these different insights in the design process. For example we could use the teachers’ insights on how things would work out in practice and whether activities are feasible. Making up the context also showed that the context you design for is an important influence on the design. We noticed that some parts in the design could not be worked out properly without knowing the context variables.

Source:
http://www.vrijebasisschool-
heistcentrum.be/ouderraad.htm

The implementation is something we considered from the start, so we identified key actors, like teachers, a principal, etc. from the start. I believe support from key-stakeholders is crucial for successful implementation and therefore we involved the whole school.

Not only the implementation should be considered from the start, but also the evaluation of the program. We embedded activities to evaluate the impact of the program into the design. Embedding the activities means you need to consider these in the first phases of design; otherwise the coherence will be in ‘danger’.

I will share new insights I stumbled into during designing the program in the next parts.

Working with TPACK

Before I started this program I already had some experiences with TPACK. I used the model to evaluate how much TPACK teachers really used in practice during my bachelor assignment and therefore I (among other things) made an observation scheme based on the TPACK model. This is another way of using the model than we did during the last assignment and again is another way than we did use the model (in some classes) during the course. That is what I find so cool about TPACK. It gives a structured way to think about using technology in educational practice but at the same time you can use the model in a very flexible way, like designing and reflection. On the top of that, you can use different elements from the model as a starting point. All this flexible ways of using TPACK does however need abstract or/and out of the box thinking, something which might be hard for teachers since they need to take a step back from what they see in practice.

TPACK and the relation with other factors

During the last assignment I learned more about how TPACK relates to other factors of the teacher. When the context and stakeholders were set, we started on developing the program itself. But where to start? What should we focus on? In the last post I mentioned the ‘TPACK minded’ teacher and that getting TPACK minded starts with being aware of the added value TPACK can offer to teaching. This idea is what the program focused on. Focusing on ‘making teachers aware of TPACK’ is somewhat abstract, so to start we reviewed literature to identify factors that influence the teacher in this ‘getting TPACK minded process’. While digging in the literature I found out how the TPACK of a teacher is related to other aspects of the teacher such as attitudes and beliefs. So working with TPACK in this matter made us see the relations between other factors needed to develop TPACK. I simplified this in a model that include the factors we could focus on in the design. The model is shown in the figure below. These are elements that are feasible to consider in such program.

Relation  between factors.

Stimulating teachers in integrating technology

As I said in the previous post and in this post, making teachers aware of TPACK is one of the first steps. Next to that, a few other factors influence the way teachers use their TPACK in practice (see above). To get teachers to really integrate technology, and thus really use TPACK, it is important that teachers have positive experience, attitudes and beliefs towards ICT (in this case, could be another technology as well) in education. Good practices might help here, but also teachers telling other teachers about success stories might be a good start. Teachers self efficacy plays an important role in the process. To gain self efficacy, teachers need practice, learning by doing and on the job is the key. Of course teachers need to gain experiences with technology to increase their ICT-skills, but this is less effective if teachers gain these skills isolated from a subject- and pedagogy-specific context. This is what TPACK can be a great help in, gaining skills in an integrated way (the way teachers see it in practice) and not isolated from each other.

As also mentioned in the previous post, we need to start this process in teacher education but we should not forget the in-service teachers. I think that working on TPACK with pre- and in-service teachers might help to break the cultural barrier. By this I mean the (often) fixed culture in schools that is hard to change, especially by one teacher that just finished teacher education. Often these teachers have a lot of new insights but these are not used by the school they will get a job.

A shared vision throughout the whole school, motivation, willingness and voluntary teachers is the key but how do we initiate that? At the end, during presentations of the other groups, it was funny to see most of the people struggled with motivational issues since everyone made the assumption that the teachers were all very motivated to work with ICT en TPACK and all joined voluntary In reality this is most likely not the case; in general there are always some teachers that do not share the enthusiasm towards ICT integration. For these teachers this threshold is a lot higher, so they need to take a jump instead of a step to pass the first development phase. This is however also related to attitudes, beliefs and experiences. We tried to pay attention to these factors by letting teachers share their attitudes, beliefs and experiences in the beginning of the program. Next to that we embed different technologies in the program, and let the teachers work with different ones to foster positive experiences.

Though I think that this might help to take a step in the right way but it might not initiate teachers volunteering. I think we need to give teachers time and space to develop that willingness and voluntary behavior. It is like learning to cycle, fall and try again until you got it. But teachers need to get time to do so and they often do not get the time and space to do so. Their performances are important so trying something is out of the questions since it might risk their performances.

How to make teachers initiators instead of ‘just’ applicators?

Bottom up is the key, is often what is stated in literature. Easily said than done I would say, because how do we get teachers to come with ideas like working on their TPACK development? Most of the teachers feel probably that they are stuck in their day to day job; teaching. I believe that there should be a balance between bottom up and top down policy.

Source: http://smiledaily.org/101Volunteer.html

In companys like Google, they give their employees time to work on something (somehow related to their work) they chose themselves. Maybe this could also be a strategy for teachers, to stimulate their willingness to try something new or improve professional development (make it more bottom up). This might be a little bit far-fetched because to start something like that, teachers might need some guidance in the beginning. And of course we need to consider that there are children involved that should not become a victim of experimenting teachers, but I bet we can find a solution for that (peer-feedback before try outs or asking children after school time).

How to make teachers educational artists (creativity)?

As also mentioned in my earlier post and in this post, creativity could greatly influence the quality of education when using the TPACK model. Creativity is however something that cannot be teached. I do believe it can be stimulated though and I think helping teachers to think out of the box would improve working with the TPACK model. The creativity part the model implies should not be underestimated. Although this does not mean that with no creativity, a good TPACK based education cannot be reached (and the other way around).. To help teachers think out of the box they need to experience out of the box. I would like to point to the metaphor witch I used in the post about educational artist.

A tool to support teachers in this out of the box thinking with the TPACK model is maybe something that might be helpful (think about a ‘question card’ that states questions with every element in the TPACK model to help teachers think from a different perspective, used in collaboration with other teachers), but the pitfall of this is that the tool would create a ‘new box’ in which teachers get stuck.

I want to end with a question that came to me when I started to think about the way I tried to interpret the model. I am, whether I like it or not, automatically colored by the society in I live in. I look at TPACK from the Dutch educational system while in Africa and Kuwait people also ‘do TPACK’. Therefore I question: am I, as an educational designer, able to understand TPACK completely without being the real expert in the context of teaching? The actual expert is the teacher. We can’t design without the expertise teachers have and should always use their insights.

References used in text: 

Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper S. R., Johnston, C., Browning, C., Özgün-Koca, S. A., & Kersaint, G. (2009). Mathematics teacher TPACK standards and development model. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 4-24.

Facebook Lessons for students in London

The school of Business and Finance developed a lesson program available via a Facebook application. Students of the Master of Business Administration can follow the whole program online. The application is free and provides lesson materials by video’s and documents. Next to that, a discussion environment is available on Facebook. Only if students want to do an exam, they have to pay the fee.

Interesting! I am curious how that works out!

Link: http://www.idealize.nl/2010/10/londense-school-introduceert-lessen-via-facebook/

The added value of TPACK

The previous post explained what TPACK is. This post focuses on how TPACK is related to the other subjects I discussed in this blog; flexible learning, pedagogical approaches and how these can be supported by technology.

Flexible learning is what I started with in this blog, after which I discussed a few pedagogical approaches. In the post about flexibility, the locus of control between the teacher and the students played a central role. How much is controlled by whom? Or… how much does a teacher want to control? And how much does the student want to control? The amount of control for each party is to be defined by the teacher (which of course is influenced by what student want to control and can control), which means that it is a characteristic of the pedagogical approach the teachers chooses. In the post about pedagogical approaches I learned that the ongoing developments in technology actually influence pedagogical approaches. Therefore technology is an important factor in flexible learning. So, considering the TPACK model, flexible learning seems to have a strong link with technological- and pedagogical knowledge. The post about flexibility finished with the note that the balance between flexibility and control needs to be well chosen to get an optimal result. Thinking about that while having the TPACK model in mind, this can be translated to a broader perspective. An optimal result in learning means balance between all components of the TPACK model.

Technology is a tricky one. Although this one is already discussed in the post about the framework, I would like to elaborate a little more on it.  When we are talking about technologies in relation to the TPACK framework, we are talking about all kinds of materials we use to support our teaching. These could be digital materials, like computers, cameras and mobile phones, but these could also be ‘analogous’ materials, like a ruler or a chalkboard (Koehler and Mishra, 2009). Not every technology we use or can use in teaching is actually produced with the aim to support teaching.  This is where the teachers come in, they are the ones who have connect these technologies to their teaching practice in such a way that it is supports learning. The TPACK model is a way of supporting teachers in integrating technology in their teaching. This model is useful for teachers because it is viewed form a teacher’s perspective and It helps teachers to think in a structured way about their teaching. This means the model could be used before the teaching, to construct a lesson for example, but also after teaching took place, to evaluate how a lesson went, whether the balance between the TPCK elements was optimal or not, etc.

On the other hand, using this model is probably not obvious for teachers. They could feel that they are forced to think in terms of the three basic components (C, T, P) to shape their teaching while In practice, the patterns (overlapping parts in the model) is what they see and what they experience in practice. This means that the overlapping parts are more concrete for the teacher and decomposing them makes it more (maybe too?) abstract. To make the model more concrete for teachers, Harris, Mishra and Koehler (2009) describe a few activity types in relation with TPACK, options for teachers to use in their teaching. During the start of this master program, we discussed about this a little bit and acknowledged that a pitfall of using the TPACK framework and especially the activity types, is that it might be a barrier for creative thinking.

Looking back at my previous posts, every conclusion somehow mentions that this all is not an easy job for teachers. Combining pedagogical knowledge, technology knowledge and content knowledge is something new for teachers. New means change and change always cost more time and effort than the old ’routines’. Teachers need to go through a professional development process to accept these kind of changes. In the previous post, I finished with the different tastes educational artists (teachers) have and how these differences influence the way they integrate technology in teaching.

This means that in this process, the understanding of TPACK, beliefs and attitudes need to be developing towards a ‘TPACK minded’ teacher, which starts with being aware of the added value TPACK can offer to their teaching. This process should start in teacher education, but of course we should not forget all the teachers that are already out there. New teachers that just finished teacher education where they learned about TPACK would probably run enthusiastically to their new job to ‘work with their TPACK’ but this won’t work if the rest of the school does not share their vision. Not only individual teachers are important in this process, but also the rest of the environment should support this process. 

Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

What is TPACK?

Figure 2: teachers as 'educational artist' in the
metaphore about TPACK

As mentioned in my last blog post, I think teachers are ‘educational artists’ and do need a creative mind to (for instance) choose the most appropriate pedagogical approach to explain about certain content and to find ways to support their teaching with appropriate technologies.  Koehler and Mishra (2009) developed a conceptual framework that describes the knowledge teachers need to (valuable) integrate technologies into their own practice, based on the key elements highlighted in the previous sentence (Knowledge about Content, Pedagogy and Technology. TPCK for short), shown in figure 1. Considering this framework, the ‘educational artists’ (teachers) have a painting palette with some ‘basic colors’.  These ‘basics colors’ are, just as artists do in painting, mixable and should be mixed to make it fit to the rest of the painting. Figure 2 shows a representation of this metaphor. In this metaphor, the basic colors are content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and technological knowledge (elements of the TPCK model), and the ‘rest of the painting’ is the context teachers teach in. It emphasizes that out of the box thinking (and thus creativity) is crucial by stating that the colors should be mixed, instead of using them (thinking about them) separately. This post is about TPACK*. What is it? And how are teachers supposed to ‘paint’ with it? 

Figure 1: Visual representation of the TPACK model
(http://www.tpack.org/)

As already noted in the introduction of this post, the TPACK model consists of three knowledge domains; ‘technological knowledge’ (TK), ‘pedagogical knowledge’ (PK) en ‘content knowledge’ (CK), which together make four new domains;  ‘technological content knowledge’ (TCK), ‘technological pedagogical knowledge’ (TPK), ‘pedagogical content knowledge’ (PCK) en ‘technological pedagogical content knowledge’ (TPACK).

Content Knowledge is the knowledge about the subject matter that is to be teached (e.g. history), Pedagogical Knowledge is about educational processes, teaching strategies, teaching methods, etc. in which teaching and learning play a central role, and Technological Knowledge encompasses knowledge about what technologies are available, how they work and how technologies can be used to support learning. The four new domains are the result of integrating these three domains with each other.

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge is the knowledge teachers need to use technologies in a pedagogical way. Important here is the teachers’ understanding that teaching and learning can change through the use of these technologies and how technologies can support pedagogies.  Technological Content Knowledge reflects knowledge about the way technology and content are related. Understanding the influence of technology on the presentation of certain content is important here. This works in two ways; the way subject matter changes because of technology and the way technology can support subject matter. Teachers need to be able to choose (the most) appropriate technology for presenting certain content in order to make it transparent and understandable for students. This also works the other way around: not every content is appropriate for a certain technology (e.g. teaching about grammar might not  be as effective when using a calculator). Pedagogical Content Knowledge is the knowledge needed to make content understandable and meaningful for students with different interests and different intellectual levels.   

Integrating all these elements results in Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, shown in the middle of the model. This middle element is about the knowledge needed to integrate content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and technological knowledge in practice in a valuable way.  Teachers need to understand the way in which these knowledge domains are related and how to keep a balance between them (Koehler and Mishra, 2009). For example: students need to make a website about a history subject. To guide this activity, the teacher needs knowledge about the subject matter (CK), about the software the websites are constructed with (TK) and about pedagogies to help students carry out the activity (e.g. making a choice between working in groups or using traditional instruction).

Knowledge and skills needed to integrate technology in practice is more than understanding content, pedagogies and technologies. The same principles are not valid in every specific situation. This means the context should also be accounted for, so the teacher should understand how context characteristics influence technology integration (e.g. student population, ICT infrastructure of a school, etc.).

The artist’s taste

Using technology in a valuable way is not obvious for teachers, as is finding the right balance between the elements from the TPACK model.  This certainly is not an easy job. The TPACK framework is a great step in supporting teachers in integrating technology in their teaching.  Just as artists have their own taste about their work (style, favorite colors etc.), so do teachers. Teachers have for example different opinions and different preferences (Hermans et al., 2008). However, this is not accounted for in the TPACK model, which is purely about knowledge. In addition to the TPACK teachers have, beliefs, attitudes and former experiences that also play an important role. As So and Kim (2009) suggest: owning knowledge is not enough, owning knowledge does certainly not mean the teacher is actually going to use it. Other important factors are for example self efficacy and educational orientation. In the next post I am going to elaborate on the added value of TPACK.

*As you might have noticed, the A is not in the explanation. The change from TPCK to TPACK was done to emphasize the ‘total package teachers need. Next to that TPACK sounds better than TPCK.

References

Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school teachers’ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1499–1509. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.001

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

So, H. J. & Kim, B. (2009). Learning about problem based learning: Student teachers integrating technology, pedagogy and content knowledge. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(1), 101-116.

”The art and science of teaching”

This is what pedagogy is called very often (e.g. Reeves, 1994). What is the art about? And why is it an art? According to Koehler and Mishra (2009) pedagogy is about the processes and practices or methods of teaching and learning. This week we talked about pedagogy. It was interesting to find out that there are many pedagogical approaches and that the ongoing developments in technology actually influence these pedagogical approaches. For instance, these days a lot of the approaches can be supported in a course management system (CMS) in many different ways. In this post I will discuss five pedagogical approaches and give an example of a way in which the approach can be supported by a CMS.

Little note: To write this post I used DragonNaturallySpeaking, a speech software, so to write this down I just spoke the words. This is the first time I use this software, at the end of this post I will let you know how that worked out! :-)

 

Traditional learning (http://www.clipartpal.com/
clipart_pd/education/desk_10579.html)

Traditional learning is probably a pedagogical approach that we all know. The content is provided by the teacher (often face-to-face) and there is minimal interactivity with the students, communication goes in one way (teacher to student). In general this approach encompasses classical instruction and is teacher centered. Through a CMS this approach can, for instance, be supported by putting assignments and content information online.

Problem-based learning is “a form of enquiry-based learning, in which learning is driven by a process of inquiry” (Kwan, 2009). Different from traditional learning the teacher supports the students in their learning process instead of providing the content. Students collaborate in small groups to find a solution to a meaningful problem. In this process students develop self-directed learning skills and construct knowledge by sharing their experiences (Hmelo, Kinzer, Lin & Secules, 1999). Typically problem-based learning is student centered and has a constructivistic way of teaching.  This constructivistic approach can be supported through a CMS by, for instance, by providing mindmapping tools. This way the learning processes is supported.

The description of Kwan (2009), stated above, suggests that inquiry learning is in the same “pedagogical approaches group” as problem-based learning. So in what way do they differ? In inquiry learning the teacher provokes learning by starting with a question. Students will collaboratively ‘search’ for the answer to the question. After finding the answer the students discuss and reflect on their learning process or the appropriateness of their answer. The teacher is again supporting the learning process, but next to that also provides information. The latter differs from problem-based learning, where getting information about the content is the responsibility of the learner (Savery, 2006) and delivery of information is thus more teacher independent. Since in inquiry learning the teacher is responsible for delivering the relevant information but the student still needs to be able to discover, a CMS can support this approach by providing content related simulations or games. Also options to chat with peers or the teacher, a discussion board and a forum are ways a CMS can be of support.

Collaborative learning
(http://www.marant.nl/portfolio.php?q=112) 

During problem-based learning and inquiry learning, collaborative learning takes place. Collaborative learning is another pedagogical approach. The main characteristic of this approach is that learning takes place when two or more students work together and share their knowledge in order to complete a task (Boer, 2004). Again this approach is learner centered. The teacher guides the learning process and often determines preconditions based on the content. A CMS can provide tools to collaborate in order to support collaborative learning. Think about possibilities for filesharing or communication (e.g. chat, discussion boards and forum).

Workspace learning (http://www.cdsbeo.on.ca
/Student_Success/SHSM.htm)

Nowadays the workplace more often is conceptualized as an environment where people learn. Workspace learning is a form of on-the-job learning, or learning in practice. Most of the time workplace learning is about gaining experience and bringing theory into practice. Students learn from an expert. In this approach learning can happen formally or informally. Briefly, formal learning is planned while during informal learning can happen accidentally. A way a CMS can support workplace learning is for instance offering the possibility to contact workplace experts and organizing video conferences. Also a forum in which experts and students can communicate is an example.

How about that....

These descriptions already suggest that there is no fixed set of rules or conditions which the teacher has to apply in order to use these pedagogical approaches. Many approaches have at least some overlapping elements (for example problem-based learning also includes elements of collaborative learning). In practice one of the most important thing for teachers is to never forget the context in which they teach. So in order to do a good job teachers need to adjust the general ‘rules or conditions’ to the context. This also means that teachers could combine certain aspects of these approaches in order to optimize their teaching for the context. I can imagine this requires lot of creativity! Next to that, Because of the ongoing developments in technology, for the teacher it requires not only the knowledge about these technologies and the options related to this, but also a creative mind to find ways to support their teaching with these technologies.

Of course the way teachers work with these approaches and fill in the approaches, is dependent on the society they teach in. Workspace learning, for instance, will be more popular and far more appropriate in a knowledge society where the workplace is commonly conceptualized as a ´place to learn´ instead of a ´place to work´. Maybe that is something the teacher also keeps in mind.

So is teaching art? I would like to think so!

About the speech software: I must admit that it took me quite a while to make this post but it was a nice way to write. In the beginning I really had to get used to talking out loud instead of formulating the sentences in my head. Next to that it took me some time to make corrections when the program misinterpreted my words. But I think a little more practicing will do most of the job!

Boer, W.F. de (2004). Flexibility support for a changing university. Doctoral dissertation. Faculty of Educational Science and Technology, Univeristy of Twente. Enschede, NL: Twente University Press.

Hmelo, C., Kinzer,C.K., Lin, K. & Secules, T.J. (1999). Designing technology to support Reflection. ETR&D, 47 (3), 43-62.

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

Kwan, A. (2009). Problem-based learning. In: Huisman, J., Mok, K.H., Morphew, C.C. &Tight, M. (Ed.). The Routledge international handbook of higher education (pp. 91-109). New York: Routledge.

Reeves, T. C. (1994). Evaluating What Really Matters In Computer-Based Education. In: M. Wild & D. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), Computer Education: New perspectives, pp. 219-246

Savery, J.R. (2006). Overview of Problem-based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9-20.

Flexible learning

This week I attended the first lecture in “pedagogies for flexible learning supported by technology”. This first lecture we discussed ‘flexibility’. We agreed that flexible learning has to do with the extent to which learners are offered possibilities to make choices about what, how, when and where they learn (Collis & Moonen, 2001). Students can ‘customize’ their learning process by making choices about different aspects in learning (e.g. time, content, entry requirements, instructional approaches, resources, logistics and delivery methods). Collis and Moonen describe five types of flexibility. In the this post, I will give a short description of each type, followed by a few advantages and disadvantages.  

Flexibility related to content

What would you like to learn? Being flexible in content regards the extent to which you are able to choose what you would like to learn about. This could include making choices about what topics, the sequence of different parts of a course or whether you would like the content to be more theoretical orientated or more practical orientated. Even decisions about key learning materials and assessment standards and completion requirements are mentioned by Collis and Moonen (2001).

Learning by practice in stead of
only reading theory.
http://saxion.nl/bml/voltijd/enschede/kort

Having some control on what content you will learn has its advantages. You can make yourself unique by shaping your own curriculum. Next to that, when I did this to some extend for my bachelor, I experienced it to be very motivating to shape my curriculum because it this way I set my own goals and the program had my full support.

But, lets not forget, I had guidance in shaping the curriculum and, before that, it took me a few years to figure out what was actually available for me to learn. Imagine someone asking you “What would you like to learn?” when coming to this University. I would not have known the answer or at least not be able to make a good choice. Next to that, there is the danger you will develop deficiencies in certain basic topics because you missed out on them. Choosing the right content for a strong knowledge basis is not only crucial to yourself but also crucial to our society.

Flexibility related to entry requirements

Conditions for entry requirements could also be fixed or flexible. Some courses require prior knowledge and therefore have certain entry requirements. If a course is completely flexible in entry requirements, everyone could participate, meaning there is a chance the audience has a very broad spectrum of prior knowledge. From a teacher’s perspective, it would barely be feasible to fit instruction to every member of the audience without making an individual program for every student (which would not be feasible either in large groups). Imagine a computer program giving instructions, it could adapt more easily adapt to the level of an individual student. In this case the flexible entry requirements give students the opportunity to start a course they find interesting which will motivate.

Flexibility related to time

http://kenyonreview.org/blog/?p=1420

“Deadline in one week!” I think everyone recognizes that line and the stressed feelings that come with it sometimes. Now close your eyes and imagine a course with no deadlines where you could submit an assignment, or take an exam whenever you are ready to.….. Or imagine a course where you could even decide on when to start the course and follow and finish the course when it you like. That would be great right? You could make your own schedule and divide time the way it suits you best. This way you are in charge of the study pace and the time you start and finish the course. On the other hand…. It would take some discipline or motivation and good planning to follow such a course. From the teacher’s perspective, it would not be very attractive since every individual student has an individual program to keep track of.

Flexibility related to instructional approach and resources

The master courses I take are in English. This is a language all students (are expected to) understand. One fixed language is used to teach the content here. Would it be flexible, all students could pick in what language they would like to follow the course. Not only language but also other pedagogical related matters have the possibility to be flexible. You can learn certain content in several ways, using several different resources. Think about social organization, supporting collaboration, individual learning or face to face instruction. Or maybe you would like to decide what learning resources to use or what whether you like to learn by doing assignments or just listening to the teacher.

Flexibility in this matter gives students the chance to choose what suits their learning style best. Though, students are not educated to identify the appropriate learning resources or the best suitable learning approach for certain content. Giving students the responsibility to chose for themselves may work counterproductive.

Flexibility related to delivery and logistics

Where and when will you participate in a course? This has to do with flexibility of delivery and logistics. Also the way you are able to get information about the course could be flexible (like blackboard) or the way you can communicate with others (e.g. teachers, or peer students).

http://web20didactiek.wikispaces.com/Online+rollenspel

Not being dependable on when to learn could be a great advantage. Especially for people who have to travel a great distance. Also being flexible in getting communicating with your teacher or other students gives you the chance to shape learning the way it suits you best. In face to face communication, on the other hand, communication is more smoothly and easier to understand each other.

Looking at all the advantages and disadvantages, self-directed learning is not an easy job for both students and teachers. As van den Eynde, Newcombe and Steel (2007) concluded that inexperienced learners needed more guidance in self-directed learning.

Just like we need a strong foundation to walk on (like a floor), I think we need some kind of foundation in education. If everything was flexible, the world of education would collapse. Not to mention the undoable job teachers would get.

Interactivity is optimal in the middle

But as I stated above, some amount of flexibility could be great. The balance between control and flexibility needs to be well chosen to get an optimal result. Thinking about that, my thoughts went to “the locus of control” of interactivity. Control could be entirely at the learner’s side or entirely at the computers side, Tannenbaum (1998) argues that exactly in the middle, interactivity will be optimal. Maybe this could also be of help in finding the right balance between flexibility and control, where in the middle interaction between teacher and student is optimal (shown in the figure above). 

In text used references:

- Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001, second printing 2002). Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations. London: Kogan Page.

- Eynde, J.A. van den, Newcombe, P.A. and Steel, C.H. (2007). Responding to learners' need for choice: Flexible learning modes for creating an e-learning community. In: Atkinson, R. J., McBeath, C., Soong S. K. A. and Cheers, C., Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007. Ascilite Singapore 2007, ICT: Providing Choices for Learners and Learning, Singapore, (1041-1044). 2-5 December, 2007

- Tannenbaum, R.S. (1998). Communication theory and developments underlying the use of multimedia. Theoretical Foundations of Multimedia. New York: Computer Science Press