Blog Summary and Review

I found the opportunity to read other people’s reflections on their learning interesting and stimulating. The process of collaborating with others through making comments and reviewing blogs made me think more deeply about the concepts I was engaging with.
I have made comments on the following blogs:
Higher Education in Web 2.0 World - http://ed6114charlenesblog.blogspot.com
Digital Natives Debate - http://annesictblog.blogspot.com
Analysis of Learning Styles - http://ejournalbyroselynn.blogspot.com/
ICT current trends - http://ictteachinglearning.blogspot.com/ (Lea)

I have chosen to review Salima and Roselynn’s blogs.
Roselynn’s blog about Higher Education in a Web 2.0 world identified the challenges facing lecturers including developing new technological skills, ensuring that learning is collaborative and understanding the students who are our target audience. Salima too identified these challenges and also reflected on the importance of using technology meaningfully and ensuring that the necessary skills are taught and practiced.
Roselynn challenged the idea that the was such a thing as a digital native but still agreed that the characteristics of 21st century learners and 21st employability skills both require a more collaborative style of teaching and learning. Salima also identified these skills and, like Roselynn, emphasised that students are not simply born with technological and collaborative skills but must be explicitly taught them with opportunities given for scaffolded practice.
Both Roselynn and Salima identified many strategies that could be used to ensure that learning was delivered in the preferred mode of the students. Both discussed how these different strategies could be employed through the learning process so all students were catered to in some way.
In the discussion about current trends in ICT Salima reflected on an interesting dilemma she faced. In one group of students she planned a collaborative approach but her students actually preferred a more didactic approach. To overcome this she skilled up her students in more collaborative approaches but also developed her confidence as a lecturer so she was more comfortable delivering the information they needed. Roselynn discussed an interesting article titled “Coping with a Revolution: Will the Internet Change Learning?" by Neil D Fleming from Lincoln University. She discussed his contention that there has always been more information than an individual could handle and therefore the information skills a learner needs have not changed. His other contention is that the primary role of universities is that of a producer of knowledge and ICT does not change that role.
Both Salima and Roselynn identified a number of challenges impacting on learning delivery in a Web 2.0 world. They also provided a number of teaching strategies that will hopefully overcome these challenges.

http://elearningbysalima.blogspot.com/
http://ejournalbyroselynn.blogspot.com/

Literature Review

The article I have chosen to reflect on is “Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Critical Thinking and Representing Knowledge” by David Jonassen. The premise of the article is that computers should not just be tools for “the acquisition and repetition of knowledge” but rather that they should be used as “knowledge construction and representation tools” (p.1). Jonassen defines Mindtools as “computer applications that, when used by learners to represent what they know, necessarily engage them in critical thinking about the content that students are studying”.
My initial reaction was to be quite excited as I could see a great deal of potential for developing teaching strategies which engage students in effective learning. I already use mindmaps as a learning and thinking tool but never had thought about the idea of using databases as Mindtools. Databases can be used to organise subject matter; for example students could use one to organise their understandings about energy or about different kinds of soil. They could use the database to answer content queries and further organise information. I will definitely experiment with using them next term in one of my units. Other Mindtools they discuss include Dynamic Modelling tools including spreadsheets, expert systems, systems modelling tools and microworlds and Information Interpretation tools including visualization tools and Knowledge Construction Tools such as hypermedia and conversation tools.
Further reading of the article however raised several questions for me. First among these was the amount of time that could be spent just teaching students how to use these tools. The author claims that Mindtools are “reasonably easy to learn” (p. 13) however I do not agree. I know how long it takes to teach students to make effective mind maps and how much time it takes them to use computer based mind mapping tools. I also have taught students how to construct basic databases and it is not an easy skill. Considering I have less than three hours with my classes and already have too much to teach them I am not sure where I would find the time to teach these skills. My students are likely to feel overloaded and these programs could potentially become another learning barrier.
My other concern is that of the “Ground Hog” effect (Mayes, p.1); that is “the excitement about technology always ended ... in disappointingly little change”. Some of the tools he mentioned such as the visualization tools help students overcome drawing ability barriers but the only advantage I can see in computer based mind mapping is that it is easier to email a completed mind map to your lecturer. The microworld as a dynamic modelling tool has potential but again I would have to consider examples in detail to ensure that the learning acquired justifies the amount of time spent in the world. I have used paper based systems modelling tools for years without a computer in sight so I would need to be convinced that the tool provides sufficient “value added”.
In conclusion I can see that using computers as mindtools is a great idea I am yet to be convinced about how workable they may be in the busyness of the everyday classroom. I am intending however to use both databases and mindmaps in one of next semester units and then decide on whether they accomplished what they needed to.


Jonassen, David (n.d.). Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Critical Thinking and Representing Knowledge. Pennsylvania State University, USA

Mayes, Terry (2007). Groundhog Day Again? JISC Innovating e-Learning 2007: Institutional Transformation and Supporting Lifelong Learning.

Learning Styles

My VARK questionnaire indicated I have a strong read/write preference and I would agree with this. I know that I have always found listening to speakers or lecturers challenging as I tend to quickly tune out (sorry Shannon!). If I have to listen I need to either walk or doodle. On the other hand I love to read. When I was studying externally I was very happy in the "good old days" when you got sent 2 kilograms of notes to read and I didn’t have to listen to anyone (nothing personal any ex-lecturers reading this!). So yes I do agree with my profile. I prefer the VARK questionnaire as it includes read/write as separate to visual. I do not learn visually however other surveys say I do because I am not kinaesthetic or auditory.
One of my big challenges as a lecturer is catering to other styles of learning, particularly auditory styles. I tend to not to want to deliver any information verbally as I switch off so quickly. Of course that has sometimes been an advantage as I never have wanted to deliver traditional teacher directed lectures.

It would be interesting to ask students to complete the survey in your first lecture/tutorial. This would be of help to them so they can gear their study to their preferred mode however it would also help the lecturer be aware of their student’s learning style. Of course in a large group situation it would be impossible to keep everyone happy so the best course would be for lecturers to use a variety of delivery styles. For example begin with a short “lecture”, break into groups to complete an activity about a set reading and then complete some kind of “doing” activity.

ICT has potential for successful delivery of learning content as the different learning styles can be catered for. For example if your students are completing a collaborative web quest there are opportunities for readers and writers to be in charge of looking up information, kinaesthetic learners can be clicking things to learn things, the internet is highly visual so that takes care of them and the aural learners can be talking about what they see and are learning.


http://www.vark-learn.com/english/index.asp

Digital Natives Debate

My students are a mix of ages and backgrounds and many do not fit the learner profile assumed in many of the readings. My students come from a variety of cultural and educational backgrounds. I have “digital natives” in their 40s and “immigrants” in their teens. In Broome we also have a mix of external and internal students. “Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World” discusses the “digital divide” (p. 6); many external students in my context have limited access to technology and therefore often have limited skills and confidence with technologies. What all the students have in common is a desire to learn in community. Using technology must therefore provide ways for them to learn and study collaboratively. Enabling this to happen presents a significant challenge.
A further reason for enabling collaborative learning is that employment skills in the twenty first century require it. “Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World” identifies communication, collaboration, creativity, leadership and technological proficiency as being essential employability skills (p.6). Obviously the only way students will learn these skills in by educators actually teaching these skills and providing scaffolded opportunities for collaborative practice.
One way I have begun to address this is through the use of Elluminate which can be described as an online classroom that enables delivery by more traditional lecture based learning but also provides ways of encouraging group learning. Two problems that frequently crop up are access to supporting technologies and students who cannot make it to assigned Elluminate times as they have work or family commitments. These students therefore cannot take part in real time collaborative learning activities. Blogs and Wikis and Discussion Boards provide avenues for collaborative work and as all students have access to Blackboard and the internet there no technology barriers so these provide opportunities for collaboration. The Chat function on Blackboard may not be overly suitable for a whole class tool may also enable small group collaboration. Elluminate could be used as a tool for taking students on a web tour demonstrating how to set up a Blog and how to access the class Wiki. This is an area that I would like to experiment with next semester.

The Committee of Inquiry into the Changing Learner Experience (March 2009), Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World, www. clex.org.uk.

Web 2.0 learning in HE

The changing environment of higher education in a Web 2.0 world offers many exciting possibilities and of course many significant challenges and questions. The readings about Web 2.0 were all interesting; I had never considered before the possibility that students may not want to use Web 2.0 outside of a social context. There were also a number of assumptions made about who learners were. Increasingly learners are not just young people who have just fallen out of high school; our learners are often older adults from a variety of technological backgrounds ranging from extremely savvy “bungee jumpers” to those who wear bomb disposal suits before touching the computer’s on switch and in all probability still think a Blackberry is what you eat with a pancake. There are also assumptions about access; not all students have access to Web 2.0 technologies and not all students have access to sufficient bandwidth for many applications and have limited access to technical support if things go wrong. Recently I had problems with an external student handing in a recorded presentation because she first had problems accessing a camera and then was only able to use an old style VCR type and then was unable to transfer the tape from the camera to a readable format (I am not explaining this well but the key message was “she couldn’t get it to work”).

The key message for me is that if I want to use Web 2.0 I need to have plans in place to overcome these barriers and need to ensure that I scaffold any tasks well. For example if I am going to have students produce a blog as an assessment tool I need to make sure they first have all the support they need to actually set up the blog before we even worry about what they actually produce.