Here’s a little game for you to consider. I’m filling out my GEAS Profile now.
Superstruct: The Final Threat.
Can we save the world?
This piece from The Guardian is about producing YouTube videos. Go read it.
When Alex Day started keeping a video diary on YouTube, he wasn't sure how it would turn out. The teenager, from Hornchurch in Essex, admits that he was just looking for some frank feedback on his funny stories and songs.
The rise and rise of the YouTube generation, and how adults can help | Technology | The Guardian.
While the thrust of the article is about how adults should be helping kids in creating online persona that are appropriate, the significant point for me is that kids are learning by producing videos.
Think about that for a minute.
Now, as we consider the role of the learner, think about what “production as learning activity” really means.
Hat tip to Micheal Guhlin for the tweet-link.
As I was putting together that post on ZPD yesterday, I was reminded of this post On Context. The idea is to derive a functional definition of “teacher” in some way that’s not what a teacher is — sage, guide, coach — so much as what a teacher does — bridge.
The problem with the existential labels is that the terms — sage, guide, coach — are ill-defined. They’re just labels which are not terribly diagnostic, provide only rudimentary guidance on behaviors and attitudes, and remain decidedly difficult to implement.
Bridge is a comparatively clear notion. It plays off Vygotsky’s idea of “scaffold” by extending the reach of an individual’s ZPD and provides a concept that’s loose enough to include classroom teachers, book authors, and movie producers — all of whom are (or can be) teachers.
The question for today is, “Is this idea too simplistic?”
I’m sometimes accused of being too wordy. As a break from that, here’s an explanation of Zone of Proximal Development from a couple years back.
Zone of Proximal Development is one of those buzz phrases you hear bandied about a lot in ed psych. It’s often mis-understood and probably needs some clarification. I think better with pictures so I drew some pictures to talk about ZPD. We tend to think about what we know like the picture below.
ZPD is one of the concepts I believe that teachers need to understand completely and too often don’t.
Here’s an interesting tidbit regarding reading.
LONDON (Reuters) - The common genetic variation linked to dyslexia may also help explain why some people without the learning difficulty are not good readers, researchers said on Wednesday.
If we can do a biometric check for reading ability, does that mean we need to have a new class of Special Ed?
When considering the role of teacher, don’t forget the idea that a teacher is often a designer. A couple of years ago in my very old blog, I wrote about communities and their relationship to the course and student.
This notion of community in online environments is one that’s near and dear to my heart — the whole notion that somebody sitting at a computer tied to a network with 200million people on it can be “isolated” is a fascinating construct. None of my non-academic friends around the world understand this notion any better than I do. But here’s Rob Wall talking about how it works in education.
See what you think.
David Wiley is one of those people operating on the edges of the educational space. In his recent post, he’s offered a new role for the teacher and a possible answer to one of the major problems I’ve had with online education for a long time — credential.
Maybe instead of hacking Wordpress, we should be hacking degrees. Anyone up for a completely informal, completely open, homemade certificate-style diploma? A handful of courses offered by all of us - take intro open ed from me, connectivism from George and Stephen, media studies from Brian (you know you’ve always wished he would teach it), and then complete three cumulative edupunk projects under the tutelage of the Reverend, D’Arcy, and Tony. Maybe D’Arcy will also offer an elective in mobile video production?
Why not? I want my homemade edupunk diploma!!!
I’ve written before that the purpose of the institution — the thing that it really provides — is the credential, not education — certainly not learning. The stranglehold that the institution has on the credentialing function maintains the economic value of the experience, to whit:
- People need jobs to survive.
- Industry requires credential.
- The credential is only available from the institution.
- People pay the institution to get the credential.
- Because people need jobs to survive.
That monopolistic function — provider of credential — has been a barrier to realizing the potential of online education. There’s even a whole industry of certification that services colleges and universities by offering, for a fee, accreditation — a kind of “Good Teaching Seal of Approval” from a variety of agencies whose sole purpose is to say “Yup. They’re ok.” Allegedly this means that diplomas actually means something and that folks don’t just send a check and get a sheepskin. Recently we’ve seen how effective that is. (Not very.)
I’ve been envisioning the solution to this as a kind of third party credential a la the Western Governor’s University that provides a kind of validation of education by certifying operational knowledge, not seat time. I’ve thought of it as a kind of ABA or AMA for various fields. If you can pass the exam, you’re given the credential and can represent yourself as a professional regardless of how/where that knowledge was obtains. David presents a more audacious idea, one more in keeping with the spirit of the internet.
What do you think about this role of teacher?
This lecture-capture article hit OLDaily today and I followed the link through to find the actual survey at UW E-Business Institute.
Check out the questions on page 8. Talk about leading the witness!
I’m still skeptical about this study. There’s too much spin.
Arguments about “sage on stage,” “guide on the side,” or “fellow learner” aside, as we start this week on the role of the teacher I would like an answer to this specific question:
Is it the role of the teacher to create knowledge or to organize knowledge? Why?
I think this question has a definitive answer, but I find it useful to see if we agree on what it is.
Chemistry gives us two concepts for how to combine solids and liquids. A solution is when the particles of solid are dissolved by the liquid. A suspension is when the particles “float” in the liquid. Salt and sugar will dissolve in water, and once mixed, the combination is stable. The salt or sugar will not separate. It’s possible to mix sand and water to form a suspension, but over time, the sand will settle out unless more agitation is applied.
As we consider the combination of tools, content, and students, I think these mental models provide a metaphor to help us understand things like “text books” in a new light. A text combines words and pictures in a way that, ideally, creates a entity that’s different from words or pictures alone. Adding graphics to words creates a new thing — a kind of cognitive solution. Whether the solution is salty or sweet really depends on the precise nature of the words and pictures, but the point is that the text can’t be subdivided again without changing the nature of the product.
Classes are more like suspensions. We can add or subtract, modify and append, but the key to keeping the nature of the class consistent is the need to periodically apply agitation so that the components don’t settle out. I can add a text, subtract a chat, bring in outside speakers, and make almost any kind of change we could think of, and as long as I keep applying energy, the suspension will maintain integrity.
As you consider your tools and your class designs, remember that you need to know how the various tools work individually as a precursor to how they work together. Once you start combining them, the critical skill is knowing how they work together and what proportions meet your goals.
