Image by Fabry Att-NC-ND

This is the second post based on thoughts after the Centre for Recording Achievement’s conference on Personal Development Planning and ePortfolios.

One of the sessions was a presentation by a team from the University of Northumbria called Illuminating and Measuring Personal Development. It was a very detailed presentation but one thing that one presenter, Jamie Thompson talked about stuck with me.

When students are asked to reflect on their learning, how do they do that without an adequate vocabulary to express it? I’ve got used to reflecting on my learning because it suits my personality and because I’m 35 so I’ve had a lot of practice.

I wonder how many undergraduates are starting courses at university who haven’t been encouraged to think reflectively or meta-cognitively. I was never involved in school education post-GCSE so this needs to be taken with a pinch of salt but it was my impression that it was never a priority to give students a chance to develop skills in introspection.

The nearest most came was to do a Learning Styles questionnaire so they could label themselves as a visual, auditory or kinaesthetic learner. Aside from the fact that it’s a very crude (and unreliable) way of describing learning there was little follow-up.

I don’t blame any of the teaching staff for that. I think the way the National Curriculum and league table regimes are set up doesn’t put a value on skills like reflection, self-managed learning and collaboration. (i.e. it doesn’t matter if kids are self-aware learners. Have they got their 5 A-C’s and >90% attendance?).

I know it’s early days for a lot of schools but most VLE’s I saw were being used primarily as document repositories and the social tools like wiki’s, blogs, forums, chat etc remained under-developed. More than that, when I saw students actually using the tools it was in a very superficial manner, mainly I think due to the fact that it wasn’t a skill they were used to deploying.

Interestingly, I saw some fantastic examples of primary age pupils being encouraged to actively reflect on their learning and developing a language to help them to do this. I think the secondary system is arranged in a way that works against students continuing to build on these skills.

So, you have new undergraduate students entering a system where they are told that reflective learning is an essential skill but some (most?) will have little idea how to express that.

Going back to the conference presentation, the way round this that this team (and others, here’s a good example from Michael Hush and Chris Edwards at the OU) has used it to include a learning or emotional intelligence compentency inventory as part of their learning skills teaching.

Popular versions of this are:

• the Effective Lifelong Learning Inventory (ELLI) – a University of Bristol project funded by the Lifelong Learning Foundation
• the Emotional and Social Competence Inventory (ESCI-U)

The results from the inventory (ELLI in the case of Northumbria) were then incorporated into the students PDP and eportfolio.

I’m instinctively a little wary of skills inventories like this. I remember in my early days as a trainer blithely dishing out unauthorised copies of Honey and Mumford questionnaires or NLP-based Learning styles surveys without any real skill in interpreting them. As a result it was either a meaningless exercise or learners would switch off from certain learning activities because they’d take the attitude they were a visual learner “so I can’t take in what you’re saying to me.”

These skills inventories, though, are a long way from that; much more rigorous and coming with a robust framework for interpretation.

On the whole, I think they are a good idea providing:

• Learners are helped to interpret the results properly and what the implications are for their own learning
• The inventories are properly embedded in the broader teaching, learning and tutoring systems.
• Learners don’t feel they have been badged for life.

Over time students will get into the habit of reflective learning becoming more autonomous and eventually developing their own emotional literacy and language for relflection.

Initially, though, these inventories provide a good form of scaffolding for people starting that journey.

Thanks to Rebecca Ferguson (@R3beccaF) at the OU for pointing me at the Hush and Edwards example.

CC Image - /Joe on Flickr

I have to be careful not to get too excited when a gizmo lands on the desk for us to evaluate at Sheffield East CLC. Having said that I was really looking forward to getting my hands on the iPod touch after hearing so much from other schools and CLC’s about using them.

I’ve had a few weeks to play with one now, although we haven’t used them with students yet, so I thought I’d capture my initial thoughts as an aide memoire for later. As with most things my opinion is likely to change but at least having this as something to refer back to might be useful.

What the iPod does is documented much better elsewhere so I’m not going to discuss that.My main point is a question, really, based on a conversation I’ve had with my boss. It’s this…

To what extent does the iPod Touch actually contribute to pedagogical change?

I start from the assumption that mobile learning is about transforming how learning happens as well as when and where.

The iPod is a great device for delivering content which is what it was designed for. It’s fun and a breeze to use for listening to podcasts, watching videos, looking at websites etc. It gets a lot harder when you try to actually create stuff and contribute.

Text input is fine for short spells but that gives quite a narrow field of ways of getting students to contribute to their own learning. If you want students to capture audio you’ll need to invest in earphones with built-in mic (which can cost up to £20). There are some nice audio apps (AudioBoo being one) but transferring sound out for use elsewhere can be a pain.

The lack of camera for stills and video is a big miss and would open up the door to myriad possibilities for developing visual literacy.

Also, a browse through the apps store for education titles is pretty uninspiring (although there are exceptions – I hope to do another blog post about some of my faves in the near future). Most are about drill-and-practice skill honing or showing information (sometimes in quite engaging and attractive ways, mind).

I don’t buy the idea that by giving a student a mobile device so they can access delivered content anytime and anywhere makes it a learner-centred experience. You need to maximise opportunities for  the learner to record and reflect on their own experiences and the iPod isn’t quite there yet although it’s a step in the right direction.

They key thing, though is that the device on it’s own isn’t going to be transformative other than perhaps adding novelty or increasing engagement. The learning culture around the device needs to find ways of using its capabilities to allow the learner to create and reflect more easily.

I’m not down on the iPod. I love it as a device. I just think that anyone investigating it as a learning tool should think as much about the environment the iPod will be used in as much as what the machine can do.

What are your thoughts on the iPod? Put me straight if you disagree…

I was trying to come up with a fun way of explaining web2.0 this summer (a little like our VLE animation from last year – starting to look a little dated now) and came up with a stick men thing but gave up because I was boring myself. This is much better than I would have managed.

I particularly like way she divorces the ideas from the technology and her positive-thinking approach.

Cheers Sacha.

Travis Allen is an 18-year old student from Georgia, USA who has started something called the iSchool Initiative. In brief, he is an advocate for getting technology into the classroom in the shape of iPod Touches.

He makes the argument that if all students had the Apple devices running a collection of apps there would be considerable learning, cost-saving and environmental benefits for schools. Check out his manifesto on YouTube.

A few reflections:

• Firstly, I wish more students took such an interest in their learning. I vigorously applaud Travis’s efforts and I hope his school/college is taking him seriously.
• The benefits of using mobile tech on a one device per student basis are well documented and certainly Apple owns the market at the moment. No one else comes close yet.
• I do feel slightly uneasy about the exclusive Apple nature of the proposal, though. I admit there is a lack of credible alternatives right now but when you are beholden to one supplier for hardware and content there may be problems further down the line. What happens if Android really takes off in 24months time and has a killer education app?
• For me the ideal situation would be when these core apps are available cross platform (I don’t know enough about the market to know if developers are making apps available for Apple and Android etc). That would then free up the students/staff to choose a device tailored to their needs.
• Travis mentions a cost of $150 per student. Is this just his cost per device? Is it one off or per year? What about wireless infrastructure? Content creation and management? I’m sure he’s right about cost savings, but his headline figure looks too good to be true.
• Travis argues that there can be communication between staff and students “anytime, anywhere”. If you have the iPod device you need wireless internet access. Go out into the field and you lose connectivity. The iPhone brings all sorts of technical complications but is actually a more exciting device. Some of the augmented reality apps that are starting to surface could transform field trips and opportunities for informal learning.
• Lastly, the restriction on websites available to those “dedicated to eductaion” seems a little draconian. Where do you draw the line? Is Twitter educationally useful? YouTube? Facebook? It feels more like a proposal to calm the fears of worried parents and staff and is therefore a political rather than pedagogical move. If you lock down access to the internet you risk losing the benefits of collaboration and creativity using web2.0 apps.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t have adowner on this. Travis’s idea is exciting and is a great vision for the future. Follow him on Twitter and give him feedback and encouragement.

Travis, if you’re reading this please comment back and keep us updated about your progress.

Image - Adi Setiawan on Flickr

Had an interesting day out on Monday at Nottingham Uni. Nick Mount and Gary Priestnall in the school of geography were hosting a workshop on the uses of immersive technologies in education. It was all a bit out of my remit as we don’t do higher ed in CLC’s but a fascinating day nonetheless.

It was all done under the auspices of the DELVE project (if you want a good example of creative acronym wrangling (CAW) check out how they got to DELVE!) which links Nottingham Uni and the OU.

In a nutshell it was a showcase of some examples of how they have been using immersive technologies (3D sims, Google Earth, Second Life) in teaching their courses. By immersive technologies (and there was considerable debate about the meaning of the term) they mean apps and hardware that allows a learner to become drawn into a virtual or augmented environment which supposedly leads to a deeper form of engagement with the task. There were also presentations from Claire Jarvis at Leicester about her work modelling GPS in a virtual environment.

The majority of the stuff being demo’s was beyond most schools’ capabilities but it was interesting to see what’s going on in other parts of the eductaional world.

Here are some of the mail things I took away from the event…

Google Earth - there was a fascinating demo of an activity to create a 3d wind farm in the Lake District in GE and then assess it’s visual impact from certain key point sround the National Park. Really made me want to investigate GE as a creative tool along with Sketchup rather than just a viewing tool.

Maptube - Brilliant. An excellent resoure for making map mashups. OK, maybe it’s only geographers like me that get excited about that sort of thing but it makes for a really groovy activity for KS4. I’ve just had a go at comparing the distribution of knife crime stats in 2006/7 with post office distribution and mashing up a map of it. Why? BECAUSE I COULD!! (Not strictly immersive technology but I’m not complaining).

Second Life - Nick was showing how they used SL as a discussion tool for a wind farm project. They had created an island in SL and mapped a mini version of the Lake District on it and users were encouraged to place turbines in certainlocations then the students’ avatars could meet and discuss different options. I’m still not convinced that SL is something we could usefully get involved with here. I have too many worries about using it in schools mainly from the e-safety point of view and I’m not sure that the pedagogic benefits are worth pursuing before schools have grasped more basic web2.0 tools.

Does anyone have any experience of using Second Life in schools? Am I missing the point?

3D Screen Technology – This was the first time I’d seen 3d used outside of BETT. They used it as a way of visualizing a wind farm (notice a theme?) in the Lake District. It was veryimpressive (and hugely expensive) but I was left with the same feeling that I had after BETT, namely that the education benefits of immersion are not proven to the extent that schools would want to invest tens of thousands in the necessary resources.

On the whole, this idea of immersion and it’s relation to engagement was fascinating and I never went just because I was trying to pick up new ideas for the classroom. Mind expanding stuff.

A wee shout out to Claire Chambers who was particularly helpful and to Claire Jarvis for possibly having the solution to all our GPS problems!

Image - non-partizan on Flickr

Here’s a thorny wee issue (Guardian again, sorry folks).

We crossed the Rubicon of calculators in exams a while ago, now the Danes are investigating allowing net access during exams for A-level equivalent students.

The article highlights the pros and cons quite neatly so I won’t regurgitate them but it’s a great indication of the fact that learning, the nature of knowledge and the methods for measuring that learning are changing in ways that our exam systems are not ready for yet.

But what do you think? Is this an invetiable development or a road we should avoid going down at all costs?

What really struck me was the point he makes about the point of education being to prepare people for university entrance. I used to work in a training and development team in a telecoms company. We did a wide range of courses of varying levels of effectiveness but I now think back on the course called “Creativity Skills”. It was 1 day long and it was pointless.

If Ken Robinson is right then having this course in our catalogue was ludicrous – like trying to demolish Edinburgh Castle with a bent toothpick. We employee people having put them through an education system that values non-creative activity, given them a degree and then told them that they can only work effectively if they use their “innate creativity”. Well, that particular part of their brain hasn’t been properly encouraged since primary school and now  we think that a 1 day course will redress that particular imbalance.

Bonkers!

Again, I’m writing a post that has only tenuous links to ICT in education but it is still one small planet  that orbits that particular sun. Look at the post on Thru You I did recently. A fabulous example of creativity and ICT coming together.

There are fantastic tools  out on the web to encourage creativity and they’re either underused in education or actively banned.

Right, I’m off for a jam session with my best mate. Cheers!

It’s by George Siemens and was published a while ago in the International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning (phew!).

A lot of the recent developments in the UK national curriculum  seem to reflect his line of thinking but I’m still aware that the way that schools are driven and measured here revolves more and more round a narrower set of skills. Schools “succeed” or “fail” on their A-C’s in Maths and English. 

Surely schools will naturally focus resources on avoiding “National Challenge” status or “Special Measures” rather than equipping their students to become effective “future-proof” learners.

Now look at this video on the BBC website about RSA Academy in Tipton and their approach to timetabling and the curriculum.

I know Tipton’s approach won’t be a magic bullet but it’s quite exciting to find how some schools are changing their teaching and learning structure.

It’s only an indirect link to ICT but with longer lessons and tis type of curriculum it’s easy to see how properly embedded ICT would add value and enhance the pedagogy.

Hope it goes well.