Types of Assignments for Blended Learning – BlendKit2014

via photopin cc

 One of the challenges of BlendKit2014, was to take time and consider what types of assignments and tasks could be integrated in a F2F context and which would be online. Between the two contexts, there should be some form of integration – neither should only be a supplement of the other, but rather function smoothly integrated. Therefore, there needs to be learning activities which may be carried out online, as well as activities in the F2F context.

Condie & Livingston (2007) observe how with digital technology, there has been a shift of focus from teachers teaching to students learning, and how learners today are creators of their own knowledge. In other words, with the wide variety of digital tools available, it is possible for assignments which reflect learning to be created online and equally submitted online. With this shift, it also means that learners need to be more autonomous in their learning. Nevertheless, as in all learning contexts, I think there needs to be clear guidance as to the nature of tasks, how they should be done, and what the expected learning outcomes should be.

One key to successful approach to integration is what Sands, (2002) refers to as “interactivity rather than delivery”, highlighting how,

“While information-transfer may be more effective online, simply putting materials up on the web will not guarantee that students engage with and learn from them. For that, you need activities that require students to perform basic academic tasks, such as summary and analysis, and that place them in conversation with each other, such as through responses to each others’ summaries and analyses. For every student who says in my course evaluations that they enjoyed or learned from lectures, there are scores who report higher engagement because of interactions with each other as well as the teacher.”

Aycock et al (2002) also stress the need to place pedagogy before technology when designing blended courses, explaining how merely transferring course content onto the web will not provide a satisfactory learning experience. In fact, in my view, it is the social nature of learning which will enhance the learning experience, particularly in regard to online tasks. Lynch et al (2009) point out how many faculty members found that “online discussions result in more and better interaction compared to face-to-face courses. In contrast, undergraduate faculty found online courses as having decreased interaction and quality of interaction compared to face-to-face courses. “

 Singh, (2003)  suggests different kinds of activities as exemplified in the table below:

This example was from 2003; every year there appears more and different kinds of digital tools which online learners can use, and these changes may aid further learners’ creation of assignments. For example, conference calls can be easily put into practice today with Google Hangouts – both between the teacher and students as well as among students.

ePublicist via photopin cc

One important aspect, which I think cannot be understated, is the need that learners are aware that it is expected that they become self-regulated learners, and are able to demonstrate a degree of learning maturity. By having a space on the course where interaction among participants can flow both freely and in a structured form (i.e. related to the specific task and topic), this would greatly help the sense of isolation that may occur when studying online. It also gives learners who tend to be quieter in a F2F context, an opening for them to connect and interact with others.

Other tasks could include debates, fishbowl activities (i.e when learners are assigned into separate groups and have to work cooperatively), case-studies and digital storytelling as well as group projects. These are all learning activities which can then be continued and integrated  in the F2F context.

 

References:

Aycock, A., Carla Garnham, Robert Kaleta, 2002, Lessons Learned from the Hybrid Course Project

BendKit Reader – Chapter 4 

Condie, R. and Kay Livingston, 2007, Blending online learning with traditional approaches: changing practices,British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 38 No 2 2

Lynch, D., G. Kearsley, K. Thompson, 2009, Faculty Use of Asynchronous Discussions in Online Learning

Sands, P., 2002, Inside Outside, Upside Downside – Strategies for Connecting Online and Face-to-Face Instruction in Hybrid Courses

Singh, H., 2003,  Building Effective Blended Learning Programs, Educational Technology, Vol 43, No 6

Wegmann, S. , K. Thompson, 2014,  SCOPe-ing Out Interactions in Blended Environments, in Research Perspectives in Blended Learning: Research Perspectives, Volume 2 (preview of book)

Advertisements

So What Happened to Learning?

I sift through reams of words and worlds of pedagogy.

I blink through bytes of pedagogy and educational concerns.

May 2013 and still the drums beat on about 21st Century Learning. May 2013, and one still faces screens flickering on about disruptions in the educational process. Spring 2013 and again I wonder – what happened to learning?

It is simple enough to pin-point what learning should and may entail today. It is simple enough to declare “we want to become digital learners”. Yet, how far is the curriculum actually moving forward to give space to the learning which needs to be put into practice?

Students will not start creating content for learning if not given space and encouragement. Students have busy lives – they are connected and digitally intense. It’s that passion, that connectivity which needs to be channeled towards learning and learning environments, that still eludes me.

Just as I am baffled by a student who explains to me that they were told not to download interactive stories onto their iPads because those apps (i.e. interactive stories) take up too much space, I am left wondering – so it’s OK to fill up an iPad with games which require no learning, no thinking, no incentive towards productive creativity?

Change in attitudes will not happen because one decides to implement change from above. Change in learning attitudes is not solely the responsibility of teachers. It is the responsibility of all members of an institution, of a community.

As a classroom teacher, I want a change in focus. Stop telling me how and what to teach. Begin telling me about learning.

Tell me about the learning for futures uncertain.

Tell me about learning for jobs which have not yet been established.

Talk to me about learning.

Then, perhaps, will I awake from this flickering slumber of digital bytes on teaching.

Dreams and Quality in Higher Ed

Everyday I read different articles, opinions, and claims on how to improve education. Ideas  expose dreams for pre-primary to post-graduate levels and yet solutions remain ellusive. Dreams? Surely there needs to be more than intangible dreaming for education. From MOOCs  to iPedagogies , all cry out for one’s attention, proclaiming  the salvation of learning.

Let me proceed with caution then, for in the midst of paradigm upheavals, of technological changes and most importantly, financial crises which affect education, one needs to inhale calmly and focus on the immediate environment.

To begin reflecting on quality in higher education, one needs first to focus on a specific context. There are higher education institutions where there are barely any facilities, computer labs with old desktops are locked up, classrooms lack what many other places would expect as the bare essentials for teaching – a white board, a projector and wifi, among other expectations.  Political entities have the power to decide whether an institution will be open to students or not; educators heed these random orders for it is safer to keep the peace and obey. Yet students, though they dream of better conditions, are content and grateful for the existence of threadbare institutions. Not only are students content, they actually accomplish their goals and achieve academic success.

As in so many fields of life, quality is relative.

Dreams too. For though I am fortunate enough to have worked in institutions where there are sufficient desks and chairs for learners, where there are libraries and digital support, I have also worked in the UK, where at one university there was no desktop for the teacher, no projector and no wifi. The immediate solution was to practice a flipped classroom approach, keeping class time for open discussions and feedback. Once, I was even assigned another classroom which turned out to be a broom cupboard. While I considered on the practicalities of the situation, my post-graduation students immediately refused to even peek inside.

It is not, therefore, only in the “developing world” that there is lack of quality in the studying conditions at higher education.

Quality and dreams will have to include the physical aspects of an institution, for they are the first contact learners and educators have with an educational organisation. The facilities will obviously depend on the location’s economic power and political desires of education. Dreams of the location will include spaces for students to work together, spaces where both educators and students can display and share their outside activities such as painting and photography. Spaces of collaboration and spaces for creativity and sharing. Dreams will include a cafeteria and food outlets which serve more than popular junk food and at prices which students can afford.

Mak (2013) highlights how higher ed institutions are places where learners are to be well informed, where they can think critically, analyse social problems and hopefully propose solutions. These elements are part of another set of dreams – those intangible aims which institutions advertise, yet only the most self-motivated learners can aspire to.

If quality at higher ed institutions is going to be taken to heart, then one also needs to bear in mind current trends which lie outside the ivory towers of power:

“Openness — concepts like open content, open data, and open resources, along with notions of transparency and easy access to data and information — is becoming a value.

Massively open online courses are being widely explored as alternatives and supplements to traditional university courses.

The workforce demands skills from college graduates that are more often acquired from informal learning experiences than in universities.

There is an increasing interest in using new sources of data for personalizing the learning experience and for performance measurement.

The role of educators continues to change due to the vast resources that are accessible to students via the Internet.” (Lepi, 2013)

These and other elements are decisive in today’s institutions. Acknowledging that educators are able to be leaders in their field without necessarily possessing traditional  academic qualifications, but experience and know-how, accepting that online course add value to an institution and do not take away its value, supporting and investing in new technologies for educators, researchers and students – all these are qualities which are necessary for an institution to practice quality management.

Is there really a will?

Or do those dreams lie in the will of those who believe?

References:

Lepi, K.,  2013, 6 Technologies that Will Change Higher Education

Mak, J., 2013, Reflection of competency-based education, training and Total Quality Management in Education

Embracing the Chaos of iPadology – Part 2

In the space between chaos and shape there was another chance.

Jeanette Winterson

What is it about that chaos that attracts me?

The underlying order it establishes, the order that waits patiently to be deciphered. Perhaps. Nevertheless, if I am to pin point a “strategy”, a new approach in my classroom, then it is with wonder and respect that I say it is the perfection of apparent chaos flowing as students engage and produce at their own rhythm.

But first let me admit – as each day I watched my students sit with their iPads in front of me, I wondered: are we (educators, administrators, politicians) confusing content and learning with a device? Is this device actually delivering quality learning or quality technology? I struggled to understand. For this was a mobile device, not one where students sat in classroom rows. This was a device to consume and create content but …. where was the learning if it was the teacher who was obliged to create? Hungry for answers, all I came across was the cliche mantra: challenge-based lessons!

My lessons have always been a challenge. Not only do I teach a 2nd/3rd language to many of my students, I come from a different educational paradigm which challenges most of their educational experience. So how exactly was the iPad to add to the challenge – other than the challenge of finding activities which would actually work on it (i.e. the lack of flash which does not enable learners to engage in the many online activities available). Above all, how, as an educator, was I to ensure good teaching practices with the iPad? Furthermore, most of what I came across regarding iPadology, was in the context of K12. I teach at higher education. Where were the bridges I needed for my students?

This brings me to Mishra and Koelher (2006) who  explain how,

“Quality teaching requires developing a nuanced understanding of the complex relationships between technology, content and pedagogy, and using this understanding to develop appropriate context-specific strategies and representations.”

If one considers the three components mentioned above (technology, content and pedagogy), there is bound to be points of tension between them at different moments in time. Today, and for example, in my case of using iPads as a learning device, I often feel that “it is the technology that drives the kinds of decisions that we make about content and pedagogy” (Mishra & Koelher 2006). Couros (2012), in an article referring to the use of social media, highlights how educators need to use the web with its 2.0 technology and not the more passive 1.0 approach. With the use of iPads in the classroom, educators have little choice but to follow this sound advice.

So where were the bridges I had to create? How was the implementation of iPadology to be effective? Far from attempting to create a new pedagogical theory, I sought a framework of practice. For “having a framework goes beyond merely identifying problems with current approaches; it offers new ways of looking at and perceiving phenomena and offers information on which to base sound, pragmatic decision making.” (Mishar & Koelher, 2006)

In order to begin establishing some kind of road map, some possible framework of practice, I considered the different contributions on App evaluations for the classroom. Below is Silvia Rosenthal Tolisano’s considerations on content and components logistics based on the SAMR model of learning.

All nicely put and visually pleasing, yet it is the framework of my daily practice that I inquire into. Could there be a road map in the apparent chaos and pedagogical tensions I perceived? Would I be capable of carrying out my pedagogical beliefs (so well summarised by Couros, 2013) with a mobile device and a set syllabus to cover?

In between the chaos and the space. Chances of learning practices loom.

References

Couros, G., 2012, Don’t use 2.0 Technology in a 1.0 Way

Couros, G., 2013, 8 Things to Look for in Today’s Classroom

Mishra, P., Koelher, M.J., 2006 – Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge

Ruben R. Puentedura’s Weblog – Ongoing Thoughts on Education and Technology

Schrock, K. , 2011, Evaluation Rubric for iPod/iPad Apps

Embracing the Chaos of iPadology – Part 1

Throughout this past semester, I tried, (often in vain), to create bridges for myself. Being accustomed to working with a computer and having students likewise work on their laptops, I had the urgent need to hold on to what I knew – digital tools which would enable learners to express themselves more creatively, digital tools which would add value to their learning of digital literacies. Above all, the use of online tools and activities which would engage learners in their learning process.

With the iPad, I was often left in despair – any site or task which demanded flash, would not work  on the iPad. Activities done with Glogster, for example, had to be left to the time slot in the computer lab as students complained how the iPad screen was too small for them to comfortably create digital posters. The world of iPadology had become a jungle with too many apps and too little effective outcomes.

1x.comphoto28743As I read papers, blogs and opinions of others, more experienced than myself with iPad teaching, more questions than answers began formulating:

1 – With so much focus on technology, where was the focus on teaching? Where was the focus on learning – other than with games which didn’t really develop deep learning? Was higher education going to be finally turned into one enormous nursery room in the name of Apps?

2 – Wasn’t the role of the teacher to actually teach?  With the increase of administrative loadings, assessment, teachers today are also expected to create iBooks and design other pedagogical materials with new digital devices – yet the discourse most commonly encountered is how it is important to let students themselves develop materials. I find this clash of discourse and expectations an added burden to teachers, who are already juggling so many extra tasks. Where exactly lies the balance?

In between digital devices, digital tools, digital beliefs, I found myself questioning. Digital technology is not a replacement of teaching. Teaching involves much more than the use of digital tools.

In regard to my first question, having students accept that their iPad was more than a trendy device to edit images, took time. They had to learn how to use a particular set of Apps, such as Edmodo, Popplet and others. Their learning had to include coming to class with their iPad charged, updating Apps and other necessities which working with iPads demands. As in many other learning processes, the first step was one of new habits and new attitudes to responsibility.

Personally, I had to adapt as well. I had to now consider learning tasks which the iPad would allow.  There are many Apps which I could recommend, but this is not the place. However, one example springs to mind: Haiku. Besides Keynotes, Haiku has become a favourite among my students; without their direct awareness, Haiku requires that the presenter speaks to the audience while showing images; for me, this was note-worthy progress from deadening presentations filled with bullet points which were merely read. I mention this example as a very positive outcome from using Apps for presentations in class. There are other Apps, such as Word Mover, which engaged my students with language and which, after having created their poems, we sat on the floor and listened to each poem with smiles of understanding.

Would my students have achieved the same outcomes without the Apps mentioned above?

Yes.

Regrettably, digital technology does not equal good pedagogy.

In fact, digital technology requires good pedagogy, for without sound pedagogy coming first and foremost, a lot of digital practices found online will fall into rote learning which was done on paper not so long ago. For me, using digital technology in the classroom is exciting  and a pleasure – as long as it can inspire learners to create, organize their thinking, enable them to learn and practice skills which will be useful in the workplace.

Philey, (2012) points out that:

“We like to say that teaching has changed, but I’d like to argue that it hasn’t. Teachers still have the same major tasks today as they did before the Internet. Two hundred years ago, teachers still:
Collaborated with students and other staff
Communicated with students and parents
Found and shared resources
Managed student behavior
Delivered direct content
Built rich, performance-based assessments”

This happened before digital technology played such a major role in classrooms and  it still does today. However, with the digital tools available today, many of the processes have changed. DropBox and LiveBinders, for instance, become resources which can be shared and accessed anytime, anywhere. Yet the fundamentals of good teaching are still ingrained in these practices. Even in classrooms where iPads are being used, there needs to be consistency in pedagogic practices for every context.

In every new paradigm shift, there is bound to be elements of chaos. Kathy Shcrock’s (2012) visual of how Bloom’s taxonomy is put into practice today, reflects how Apps may be used, and possibly what an iPad classroom may look like:

8178269_origIt is in the inter-action of the above wheels, in the how and why that chaos may seem to be integral to iPadology. Apps offer much more than games; as one can see above, the creativity wheel is practically central to iPadology  – and creativity also implies problem solving and critical thinking.

As for my second question regarding the role of teachers: as in other contexts without iPads, a teacher plays out a number of roles in the classroom. Within an iPadology, it appears to me, that one of the central tasks is to have learners create learning materials. This implies that tasks are appropriate for the level and goals students need to achieve. There are marked differences between learning at primary, secondary and higher education, each having its own set of goals and outcomes. Is the educator now going to teach tech or the subject matter at hand?

Where lies the balance?

Can balance be achieved within chaos?

References:

Schrock, K., 2012, Bloomin’ Apps, Kathy Schrock’s Guide to Everything

Piley, A., 2012, Let’s Stop Talking About Teaching with Tech

The Fallacy of Being a Facilitator

1xcom:photo33799

End of semester blowing in the cold morning wind and time for truths. Time to reflect, recall and question my learning. Time to consider my learners’ learning. And what changes I may – or not – resolve to make in the near future.

But first, my context: Teaching students who have just entered higher education and who struggle with the foreign language that their degree requires. Students who have had no digital learning experience before, yet now have been given an iPad as their learning tool.

1xcom:photo36463And then there is me.

Me, who is teacher and learner.

Me, who plays out the varying roles that classrooms demand.

Or do they?

Me, who is likewise holding on to mental railings, with fear of falling. Digital entanglements can strangle the mind.

Teaching strategies cannot be discussed before reflecting on the nature of my role. For it will be defining.

In my view, it is a fallacy to determinedly say ” I am not a teacher – I am a facilitator“. Not only does that come across to me as another stale, band-wagon expression, but also begs the question of what exactly is one “facilitating” when one is expected to be teaching. It is as if the very word “teaching” has become only associated with dry, lifeless lecturing; teaching, in that context is far from engaging, therefore “teaching” must be substituted by another word, another determiner, another box which can pin down the role as simply as one pins  a dead butterfly. Therein lies the fallacy.

Teaching is not a cold, distant, ranting lecture without a context.  There is a wealth of roles, often overlapping each other, that can be found in the act of teaching. Hence my rejection of notions that state, do not teach! Facilitate!

Sunnaborg, (2008) explains that “Whereas a traditional pedagogical teaching approach emphasizes the role of the teacher as the holder of the wisdom, facilitation puts the onus on the participants to become involved in their own learning. The facilitator’s role is to introduce subjects of discussion, encourage sharing of perspectives, and integrate students’ shared experiences.”

If on the one hand I find this too vague for my educational context, (language learners expect some kind of explanation to their questions of why and why not?), on the other hand, this fuzzy interpretation of classroom teaching leaves me wondering – would I as a young learner or even university student, be prepared for this approach? By no means have I ever believed that the teacher holds all the truth and nothing but the truth. Perhaps I was fortunate enough to always have inquired, to have questioned the “bare truths” handed down to me. Consequently, as an educator I have always provoked my students into questioning, into inquiry and not merely passive listening (or in my eyes, passive daydreaming).

Additionally, I cannot perceive any educational process or educational experience if learning is not emphasized. Nevertheless, noble aims of learner autonomy, learner responsibility, learner involvement in their learning environments (e.g. using digital spaces as a learning environment) are per se, steps in learning –  not all students grow up with that set of educational aspirations. Not all cultures foster independent inquiry nor wish their young citizens to question. Critical thinking practice is often left to higher education and today, owing to demands from the job market, more widely accepted as a requisite in education.

Sunnaborg (2008) also reveals how his ” job was not to tell; my job was stimulate thinking, encourage exploration, make associations, and be a connector.” Again, I question this statement as it is the learner who makes the connections 1xcom:photo25510not the facilitator or teacher.  As for “stimulating thinking”, didn’t learners think before this role shift? As Stager (2012) points out,  “Regardless of the speaker’s intent, “teacher as facilitator” is a cliché that makes teaching sound more mechanistic and impersonal, not more.”

Education is neither mechanistic, nor  impersonal. No matter what technology is introduced in the classroom, no matter what strategy, teaching approach or even method is being applied, classrooms are the heart of education. They are alive, forever changing and above all, hold youthful humanity,  with its hopes, dreams and fragilities. Hence I cannot claim to be anything else but a teacher, an educator,  who will adopt the best approach for my learners’ context.

Which brings me back now to digital entanglements. It is no secret that I strongly believe in using digital technology for the purpose of learning (see CristinaSkyBox). Nevertheless, as I used the iPad in my every day teaching, questions and doubts haunted me. Bearing in mind the framework proposed by TPACK, how effective was my learning to teach with iPads? How effective were my lessons in light of my educational beliefs and practices Before iPad? Most significantly, how did my students learn?

“Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org”

I shall attempt addressing those last questions in my next posts related to elements of iPadology, and end here for now with Adam Simpson’s video related to the TPACK framework and English Language Teaching:

References:

Simpson, A., 2012, The #TPaCK Model – An Introduction

Stager, G. 2012, We Need Teachers, Not Facilitators!

Sunnarborg, M. 2008, From Teacher to Facilitator

Learning Mobility

Cordelia – Nothing

King Lear – Nothing!

Cordelia – Nothing.

King Lear – Nothing will come of nothing; Speak again.

Silence. Stillness.

Disconnection. Nothingness.

Having recently experienced a tech meltdown ( CristinaSkyBox), issues regarding the relevance of being connected, of teaching digital citizenship/identity, of engaging learners and teachers with technology for education, it is no surprise that concerns about mobility have been most on my mind.

It is never sufficient to explain how mobility needs to be integrated into classrooms. Mobility of being able to connect without firewalls, mobility to use mobile phones – above all, the mobility to inspire minds. In many institutions world over, the rule of no mobile phones in the classroom is still strongly preached and enforced.

Question: what exactly are educators afraid of?

Are they indeed concerned for their learners or the fact that their classrooms are dull, boring, lifeless?

Or,  is it the threat that a younger generation,  who is more tech-savy, has the power to dismiss the teacher who does not wish to update him/herself both technologically and pedagogically? Were I student today at school (and please do note that I am in fact currently a student as well), I would be on my mobile device throughout boring lessons. Why would I even want to attend school if I was not learning how I wanted to, how I needed to and above all ,not  be respected as a 21st century learner?

Mobility to learn is not just related to M-learning. Mobility to learn is our reality today with OER, Open Universities, MOOCs, Web 2.0, mobile devices and so very much more.

Mobility is an attitude. A state of mind. A state of learning.

Question: what right do “teachers” have to censor learning?

What right do “educators” who are unwilling to keep up with current pedagogical approaches, with the needs of their learners, with the demands of real life outside the classroom, have to maintain silence? To establish educational censorship?
Bauer (2012)  explains how “Today’s students aren’t interested in “going online” to get things done. Booting up, opening the browser, logging on, navigating to the task — they’ll do it if absolutely necessary. Students live in a text and tweet world now and are more likely to consume information and access services if they’re mobile-friendly.
Tinto, suggests that in order to maintain student retention at higher education, that structures need to be put into place which meet their needs. In his study Taking Student Retention Seriously: Rethinking the First Year of College, Tinto raises several issues in regard to student success and retention and explains how:

Involvement is also an important condition for student learning. Even among students who persist, students who are more actively involved in learning, especially with others, learn more and show greater levels of intellectual development.

Tinto also stresses the need of not only shared knowledge but share knowing – and shared responsibility. This is put into practice through communities where students are required to collaborate with each other. Result?

” students spend more time-on-task, learn more, and persist more frequently than similar students in stand-alone and/or traditionally taught classrooms. Their involvement with others in learning within the classroom becomes the vehicle through which effort is enhanced, learning is enriched, and commitments to their peers and the institution are engendered. By being placed in a setting where students have to learn together in a collaborative fashion, everyone’s understanding and knowledge is enriched. As one student observed, “not only do you learn more, you learn better.” (Tinto, Taking Student Retention Seriously: Rethinking the First Year of College,)

It is through digital and mobile technology that these successes occur.

Bauer highlights how “According to market research firm IDC, by 2015 more users will access the Internet through mobile devices than through PCs. By not embracing mobile, institutions will not only miss an opportunity to communicate with their students, they will actually create an interaction barrier.”

Change comes slowly. Change does not happen in a vacuum. Change demands loss of fear and commitment. Bauer’s  (2012) results from a 2011 survey showed the following:

We were surprised to learn that students wanted more than just a handful of campus services on their mobile devices — they wantedeverything. The overwhelming majority wanted mobile access to view grades, check course schedules, and log in to the college’s learning management system, Blackboard. They also wanted access to essential services like the library database and course registration information, along with conveniences like dining menus and bus schedules.

The student survey also pointed out that a majority of the students felt that mobile apps were of high importance. It was clear that whatever we did with mobile, we needed to do it quickly. And in building our strategy, we needed to incorporate students in creating the vision – we couldn’t workshop something and pop it out on them. We needed their voices and ideas in our development efforts.”

Change. Change is embedded in life. Change should be embedded in education.

However, as Herrington & al (2009) note:

Despite the significant potential of mobile technologies to be

employed as powerful learning tools in higher education, their current

use appears to be predominantly within a didactic, teacher-centred

paradigm, rather than a more constructivist environment. It can be

argued that the current use of mobile devices in higher education

(essentially content delivery) is pedagogically conservative and

regressive. Their adoption is following a typical pattern where

educators revert to old pedagogies as they come to terms with the

capabilities of new technologies, referred to by Mioduser, Nachmias,

Oren and Lahav (1999) as ‘one step forward for the technology, two

steps back for the pedagogy’ (p. 758).

Barseghian (2012) recently pointed out:

The opportunity of using mobile devices and all of its utilities allows educators to reconsider: What do we want students to know, and how do we help them? And what additional benefit does using a mobile device bring to the equation? This gets to the heart of the mobile learning issue: beyond fact-finding and game-playing – even if it’s educational — how can mobile devices add relevance and value to how kids learn?

There’s not just one explanation. As mobile devices evolve and become ever more powerful and multi-functional, the answers will change. In the meantime, there are some things educators know for certain do make a big impact on learning.”

Finally,

“Because mobile devices are the new piece here, people want to know does it make a difference,” Pasnik said. “When we know that learning happens because of relationships, and we want to keep that richness. So the question of the value of a single piece like the mobile phone becomes reductive. You falsely are having to focus in one element, when in fact, learning happens because multiple elements are interacting with one another.” (Barseghian, 2012)

With learning in mind, I turn to Herrington & al (2009) who call one’s attention to authentic learning:

“Authentic learning situates students in learning contexts where they

encounter activities that involve problems and investigations reflective

of those they are likely to face in their real world professional contexts

(Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Herrington

and Oliver (2000) have identified nine characteristics of authentic

learning:

• authentic contexts that reflect the way the knowledge will be used

in real-life

• authentic activities that are complex, ill-defined problems and

investigations

• access to expert performances enabling modelling of processes

• multiple roles and perspectives providing alternative solution

pathways

• collaboration allowing for the social construction of knowledge

• opportunities for reflection involving metacognition

• opportunities for articulation to enable tacit knowledge to be

made explicit

• coaching and scaffolding by the teacher at critical times

• authentic assessment that reflect the way knowledge is asses in

real life.”

Mobility is real. Mobile learning is reality. So, again I ask, what right do those who are involved in education, dare dismiss mobility? Mobile phones, iPads/tablets, iPods are all useful learning tools. Learners connect with their devices – and through their day-to-day devices, become more open, more accepting of being in a classroom. Or must they only be in a classroom to do tasks and actually learn?

Hockly (2012) clearly explains how teaching/learning tasks may be carried out in the classroom or on “the go”. Even when an institution denies permission to use M-learning, there are so many creative, inventive ways for educators to guide learner on how to use their mobile devices. It is a question of taking advantage of the moment, of opening learning opportunities to students.

No. This lack is not because of tech. There are too many teachers, who by sticking to routine lesson plans, afraid of taking the untread path, fearful of losing “power”, do not take advantage of relevant learning moments. Which begs the question – isn’t that why students go to educational institutions? Aren’t they there to learn?

Many comments, such as the ones published here and here, are unacceptable. If one is involved in education, one has social, ethical and professional responsibilities. Educators need to keep up-dated. Educators need to connect with their learners, guide them, show them how they can use their devices to learn and not only send texts to each other.

In the words of Siemens (2012) in regard to higher education:

Educators are not driving the change bus. Leadership in traditional universities has been grossly negligent in preparing the academy for the economic and technological reality it now faces.”

Changes. Economic, technological realities. It is not only at tertiary education where these changes should be taking place, but at all levels of education.

Mobility comes in many forms. Mobility is above all an attitude, a belief and practice of life.

References:

Barseghian, T,  (2012) Amidst a Mobile Revolution in Schools, Will Old Teaching Tactics Work?

Bauer, P. (2012) Mobile: It’s Time to Get Serious

Herrington, J., Herrington, A., Mantei, J., Olney, I., & Ferry, B. (2009). New technologies, new pedagogies: Using mobile technologies to develop new ways of teaching and learning. In J.Herrington, A. Herrington, J. Mantei, I. Olney, & B. Ferry (Eds.), New technologies, new pedagogies Mobile learning in higher education (pp. 1-14). Wollongong: University of Wollongong. Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/

Hockly, N. (2012) in Mobile Tech, Nicky & Language Acquisition – IATEFL, Glasgow 2012

Siemens, G. (2012) The Future of Higher Education and Other Imponderables

Tinto, V.  Taking Student Retention Seriously: Rethinking the First Year of College

Further Reading:

10 Sites to use with Mobile Phones in Education

E-moderation Station

Mobile Devices Drive Creative Instruction

Top 50 Mobile Learning Resources