Recognising the reality that you just can't predict whether and which students will end up with down time during the school day, this looks pretty normal to me. It's important that the students can negotiate additions to the 'approved list.'
http://doug-johnson.squarespace.com/blue-skunk-blog/2013/2/8/7-things-you-can-always-do-in-my-class-with-your-device.html
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Monday 11 February 2013
Monday 4 February 2013
It's time to move on...
Mal Lee suggests the way forward after the Digital Education Revolution - and school principals are absolutely key to effecting the shift.
"Recognise that Moore’s Law is on track and that the kindergarten children
starting school this year will on current projections graduate in Year 12 using
computers with the power of the human brain."
"All principals – and not just the pathfinders – have the responsibility of
ensuring today’s digital technology is being used astutely in the realisation of
a school educational vision where the digital is used integrally, naturally and
effectively in every facet of the school’s operation."
- Mal Lee.
Read more at: http://malleehome.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Whereto-After-the-Digital-Education-Revolution.pdf
Sunday 3 February 2013
So what's normal?
Whenever I see kids learning in schools today, I always think to myself: 'Is this normal?"
By that, I mean, if they weren't in school, if they really wanted to be learning something, doing something... would they be doing it like that? Would they be doing it with those people, in that place, with that equipment, at that time? If the answer to any of these questions is no, then we need to ask why they're not learning 'normally.'
This is really important because, if they're not learning 'normally,' then what sort of preparation is it for real life? I'm not saying that children are little adults and should be doing what we do in our everyday lives, but I do believe that there are more similarities between pedagogy and andragogy than there are differences. And, where sound pedagogical theory also supports a way of working with children that does provide a more 'real life,' "adult,' or yes, 'normal' opportunity to learn, then I think it makes sense to take that approach.
Let's look at an example:
Here's a picture of something really exciting I saw recently. A group of Year 5 children from Dubai, with their teacher, Skyping into the BETT show at The Excel, London. They were engaged in a 3-way video link up with a school in Sweden and another group of children from a London school.
The kids really enjoyed this experience. They knew they were on a big stage and most were pretty nervous - they'd spoken to their Swedish counterparts several times before, but this was different and they knew it. This was great experience for them in dealing with those nerves and they carried it off very well indeed. After the link to BETT, the teacher called the Swedish school again. Without the pressure and the nerves, it was amazing to see how the children on both sides relaxed and began interacting more 'normally.' The Swedish students dressed up in their winter clothes, showed off their toboggans and skates - the kids in Dubai loved it and it prompted much more authentic questions and interactions than were observed in the BETT session. I'd suggest that one of the reasons for this was that, in the second Skype, the adults stepped back and the children really felt their new found freedom. The teachers were still there of course, but there was no pressure on them or the children to perform to some arbitrary, synthetic standard. The children were now in control. The result? Standards went up. The interaction was authentic.
So I got to thinking - how normal was all of this from the students' standpoint? Well, in the first call, we saw something great - students video-conferencing with peers across borders, presenting to a live audience thousands of miles away, and managing their nerves. Not bad. In the second call, though, they had the freedom to control their learning, to take the conversation their own way and to focus on the areas that really interested them. Much more normal. I heard last week that one of the interview questions for prospective Google employees is: "Tell me about your last 3 internationally collaborative projects." These students and their teachers would have a good start on answering this...
But could this be even more normal? I reckon so. Let's think about how. Firstly, if I wanted to know more about life in Sweden, I would probably find it difficult in such a large group, sharing one computer. Not everyone got the chance to speak or have their questions answered. Would it be better to do it in pairs or one on one? Maybe. Next, I think it's a fair bet that the kids went away and thought up more questions they wanted answered. What could they do about that? Probably not a lot, maybe until the next scheduled session, probably next week sometime. Is this normal? No, it's crazy. So... I would suggest this as the next step in normalising the learning on this project:
Set up computers in the classroom or elsewhere so that the children can Skype their peers when they need to, not in a session scheduled for next week, when the moment has gone. If they have their own devices, allow them to use these for this purpose. Of course, they should let their teachers know what they're doing and be supervised, but the point is that they have made the decision to use a tool for a specific purpose linked to their own learning journey - it's teacher-faciltated, not directed. Imagine the excitement in Sweden when the Skype tone goes off: Dubai calling! And vice versa, of course. Would this be disruptive? Maybe. Does your Skype / phone go off at inopportune moments? Does someone barge in and talk to you when you are too busy to welcome the interaction? Often. That's normal. The children and teachers would need to learn to learn (intentional!) how and when it is appropriate to contact their peers and for what purposes. This is a great learning opportunity. If the Skype goes off in the middle of a maths lesson, grasp the opportunity and make up the time. Again, normal.
Just a small next step to normal learning. Maybe a bit scary, but I'd love to see it in action...
By that, I mean, if they weren't in school, if they really wanted to be learning something, doing something... would they be doing it like that? Would they be doing it with those people, in that place, with that equipment, at that time? If the answer to any of these questions is no, then we need to ask why they're not learning 'normally.'
This is really important because, if they're not learning 'normally,' then what sort of preparation is it for real life? I'm not saying that children are little adults and should be doing what we do in our everyday lives, but I do believe that there are more similarities between pedagogy and andragogy than there are differences. And, where sound pedagogical theory also supports a way of working with children that does provide a more 'real life,' "adult,' or yes, 'normal' opportunity to learn, then I think it makes sense to take that approach.
Let's look at an example:
Here's a picture of something really exciting I saw recently. A group of Year 5 children from Dubai, with their teacher, Skyping into the BETT show at The Excel, London. They were engaged in a 3-way video link up with a school in Sweden and another group of children from a London school.
The kids really enjoyed this experience. They knew they were on a big stage and most were pretty nervous - they'd spoken to their Swedish counterparts several times before, but this was different and they knew it. This was great experience for them in dealing with those nerves and they carried it off very well indeed. After the link to BETT, the teacher called the Swedish school again. Without the pressure and the nerves, it was amazing to see how the children on both sides relaxed and began interacting more 'normally.' The Swedish students dressed up in their winter clothes, showed off their toboggans and skates - the kids in Dubai loved it and it prompted much more authentic questions and interactions than were observed in the BETT session. I'd suggest that one of the reasons for this was that, in the second Skype, the adults stepped back and the children really felt their new found freedom. The teachers were still there of course, but there was no pressure on them or the children to perform to some arbitrary, synthetic standard. The children were now in control. The result? Standards went up. The interaction was authentic.
So I got to thinking - how normal was all of this from the students' standpoint? Well, in the first call, we saw something great - students video-conferencing with peers across borders, presenting to a live audience thousands of miles away, and managing their nerves. Not bad. In the second call, though, they had the freedom to control their learning, to take the conversation their own way and to focus on the areas that really interested them. Much more normal. I heard last week that one of the interview questions for prospective Google employees is: "Tell me about your last 3 internationally collaborative projects." These students and their teachers would have a good start on answering this...
But could this be even more normal? I reckon so. Let's think about how. Firstly, if I wanted to know more about life in Sweden, I would probably find it difficult in such a large group, sharing one computer. Not everyone got the chance to speak or have their questions answered. Would it be better to do it in pairs or one on one? Maybe. Next, I think it's a fair bet that the kids went away and thought up more questions they wanted answered. What could they do about that? Probably not a lot, maybe until the next scheduled session, probably next week sometime. Is this normal? No, it's crazy. So... I would suggest this as the next step in normalising the learning on this project:
Set up computers in the classroom or elsewhere so that the children can Skype their peers when they need to, not in a session scheduled for next week, when the moment has gone. If they have their own devices, allow them to use these for this purpose. Of course, they should let their teachers know what they're doing and be supervised, but the point is that they have made the decision to use a tool for a specific purpose linked to their own learning journey - it's teacher-faciltated, not directed. Imagine the excitement in Sweden when the Skype tone goes off: Dubai calling! And vice versa, of course. Would this be disruptive? Maybe. Does your Skype / phone go off at inopportune moments? Does someone barge in and talk to you when you are too busy to welcome the interaction? Often. That's normal. The children and teachers would need to learn to learn (intentional!) how and when it is appropriate to contact their peers and for what purposes. This is a great learning opportunity. If the Skype goes off in the middle of a maths lesson, grasp the opportunity and make up the time. Again, normal.
Just a small next step to normal learning. Maybe a bit scary, but I'd love to see it in action...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)