Theories for the digital age: Self regulated learning

Informal and self regulated learning are defining characteristics of 21^st Century education. Various commentators suggest that as much as seventy percent of learning occurs outside of formal educational settings (Cofer, 2000; Dobbs, 2000; Cross, 2006). If these are accurate statistics, they present a significant challenge to schools, colleges and universities. One challenge for education providers is to decide whether they will support the desire of students to self regulate their learning activities using personal technologies. Institutes that discourage the Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) movement may be perceived by their students as anachronistic. Those who do support BYOD for students and staff will need to invest significant time and resources into ensuring cross platform operability and seamless delivery to students’ personal technologies.

Self regulation of learning is thought to be a characteristic of individual students (Beishuizen, 2008) but increasingly can be contextualised within social learning environments. A number of collaborative and social networking tools regularly play a role within the average student PLE. Self regulation has been shown to enhance and improve learning outcomes (Paris & Byrnes, 1989; Steffens, 2008), enabling learners to achieve their full potential (Delfino et al, 2008).  Personal technologies are thought to enable self-regulation at a number of levels, including the ‘object’ and ‘meta’ levels of learning, supporting maintenance, adaptation, monitoring and control of a variety of higher level cognitive processes (Nelson & Narens, 1990). By using personal devices as ‘mindtools’ to offload simple cognitive tasks, students can extend their own memories (Jonassen  et al,1999), build their confidence, and increase their motivation levels (Goldsworthy et al, 2006). Further, personal devices enable individuals to gain access and to participate at many levels within their communities of practice, from ‘entering by learning’ through to ‘transcending by developing’ (Ryberg & Christiansen, 2008). All of this is often achieved by students outside the formal surroundings of school or university, with no time or location constraints.

Moreover, there is a sense that personal technologies encourage learners to be self-determined in their approach to education. Hase and Kenyon’s (2007) conceptualisation of self determined learning - or heutagogy- places the emphasis on non-linear, self-directed forms of learning, and embraces both formal and informal education contexts. The central tenet of heutagogy is that people inherently know how to learn. The role of formal education is to enable them to confidently develop these skills, encouraging them to critically evaluate and interpret their own personal reality according to their own personal skills and competencies. The ethos of heutagogy extends to learner choice, where students can create their own programmes of study, a feature often seen in the loose and unstructured aspects of some Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs). In many ways, heutagogy is aligned to other digital age theories, in that it places an importance on ‘learning to learn’, and the sharing rather than hoarding of that knowledge. It is not difficult to see that such sharing of knowledge can be easily achieved through social media and the use of personal digital technologies. 

[This is an excerpt from a forthcoming publication entitled: Personal Technologies in Education: Issues, Theories and Debates]

References

Beishuizen, J. (2008) Does a community of learners foster self-regulated learning? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17 (3), 183-193.

Cofer, D. (2000) Informal Workplace Learning. Practice Application Brief No. 10, U.S. Department of Education: Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.

Cross, J. (2006) Informal Learning: Rediscovering the natural pathways that inspire innovation and performance. London: John Wiley and Sons. 

Delfino, M., Dettori, G. and Persico, D. (2008) Self-Regulated Learning in Communities. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17 (3), 195-205.

Dobbs, K. (2000) Simple Moments of Learning. Training, 35 (1), 52-58.

Goldsworthy, S., Lawrence, N. and Goodman, W. (2006) The use of Personal Digital Assistants at the Point of Care in an Undergraduate Nursing Program. Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 24 (3), 138-143.

Hase, S. and Kenyon, C. (2007) Heutagogy: A Child of Complexity Theory, Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 4 (1), 111–118.

Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. and Wilson, B. G. (1999) Learning with technology: A constructivist approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Nelson, T. O. and Nehrens, L. (1990) Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.) The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, New York, NY: Academic Press.

Paris, S. G. and Byrnes, J. P. (1989) The constructivist approach to self-regulation and learning in the classroom. In B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk (Eds.) Self Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theory, Research and Practice. New York, NY: Springer.  

Ryberg, T. and Christiansen, E. (2008) Community and social network sites as Technology Enhanced Learning Environments. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17 (3), 207-220. 

Steffens, K. (2008) Technology Enhanced Learning Environments for self-regulated learning: A framework for research. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17 (3), 221-232.  

Drawing Hands by M C Escher 

Theories for the digital age: Self regulated learning by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Theories for the digital age: Postmodern perspectives

Postmodernist views of society can be appropriated as lenses to analyse the personalised use of digital technology. Consumers of Web based content tend to search randomly and nomadically, due to the multi-layered, multi-directional nature of hyperlinked media and this aligns neatly with some post modern theory. The writings of Deleuze and Guattari (1980), for example, feature the nomadic thought processes that characterise contemporary perceptions, and portray the chaos of modern life. They employ the botanic metaphor of rhizomatic root systems to describe multiple, chaotic non-hierarchical interpretations of knowledge. Rhizomes resist chronology and organisational structures, thereby more accurately representing the unstructured but purposeful manner in which many people now use the Web.

Significantly, because rhizomes are open ended, the importance of Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizome explanation is not invested in individual components, but rather in the direction of motion the entire organism can adopt at any given time. This is reminiscent of the participatory Web, which consists not so much of the insights and offerings of individuals, but rather of what Surowiecki (2009) has termed ‘the wisdom of the crowds’ – the seemingly random folksonomic directions chosen by entire communites of users as having meaning and importance. The community decides what is important to learn, so in effect, the community becomes the curriculum (Cormier, 2008).

According to Cormier (2008) a rhizomatic interpretation of education is useful because it embraces the ever changing nature of knowledge, is open ended, and is not driven by specific curricula whilst learning is ‘constructed and negotiated in real time by the contributions of those engaged in the learning process.’  This form of negotiated meaning more clearly represents the knowledge acquisition processes that occur within the transient discussion threads and ephemeral collaborative spaces on the World Wide Web.

The colonisation of knowledge spaces by communities is self sustaining, and in Deleuze and Guattari’s terms, we see individuals assuming the roles of nomads, maintaining a constant state of becoming and transformation. Again, this is reminiscent of the random searching, scanning and jumping around content through hyperlinking that learners participate in when they traverse the digital landscape. In effect, students participate as flâneurs, acting as individual agents, investigators and explorers of their own personal digital terrains. Their seemingly aimless behaviour belies their essentially purposeful wandering, as learners interrogate their environment in attempts to make sense of it, understand it, participate in it, and ultimately portray it (Baudelaire, 1964). 

[This is an excerpt from a forthcoming publication entitled: Personal Technologies in Education: Issues, Theories and Debates]  

References

Baudelaire, C. (1964) The Painter of Modern Life, New York, NY: Da Capo Press. (Originally published in Le Figaro, in 1863).

Cormier, D. (2008) Rhizomatic Education: Community as Curriculum. 

Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1980) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. London: Continuum.

Surowiecki, J. (2009) The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many are Smarter than the Few. London: Abacus. 

Photo by Steve Wheeler

Theories for the digital age: Postmodern perspectives by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Theories for the digital age: The digital natives discourse

Is learning in the 21^st Century significantly different to learning in previous years? One of the more controversial theories of the digital age is the claim that technology is changing (or rewiring) our brains (Greenfield, 2009) whilst some also claim that prolonged use of the Web is detrimental to human intellectual development (Carr, 2010). It could be argued that these theories stem back to the seminal claim of Marshall McLuhan (1964) that ‘we shape our tools and thereafter, our tools shape us.’ This belief was also the basis for the Digital Natives and Immigrants theory (Prensky, 2001), a persistent discourse that has greatly influenced the thinking of educators in recent years. A significant body of work has arisen around the Digital Natives and Immigrants theory, including descriptions of younger students as ‘the Net Generation’ (Tapscott, 1998), ‘Screenagers’ (Rushkoff, 1996), ‘Born Digital’ (Palfrey and Gasser, 2008), ‘Millennials’ (Oblinger, 2003), and ‘Homo Zappiens’ (Veen and Vrakking, 2006). The latter theory suggests that younger students learn differently, through searching rather than through absorbing, through externalising rather than through internalising information, are better at multitasking, and see no separation between playing and learning (Veen & Vrakking, 2006).

If these theories are true, and younger students do learn differently, the implications for education are profound, demanding changes to the way formal learning content is developed, delivered and organised, and a reappraisal of our conception of knowledge and what it means for education. There are, inevitably, objections to the Digital Natives position.

All of the above theories tend to characterise younger learners as being different to previous generations in their use of technology. These positions are countered by researchers who maintain that such claims are largely based on anecdotal and intuitive arguments, and that there is no significant difference in the way younger or older students manage their online learning activities (Crook and Harrison, 2008; Ito et al, 2009; Kennedy et al, 2010) and that the current generation of learners is far from homogenous (Bennett et al, 2008; Jones and Healing, 2012). Bennett et al (2008) also assert that there is no clear evidence that multi-tasking is a new phenomenon and exclusively the preserve of younger learners. Jones and Healing (2010) criticise the Digital Natives and Immigrants theory as too simplistic, and point out that a greater complexity exists in the way students of all ages use technology, based not on generational differences, but on agency and choice. There is yet further dissent. Vaidhyanathan (2008) argues that ‘there is no such thing as a digital generation.’ He suggests that every generation has an equal distribution of individuals with low, medium and high levels of technology competency. Vaidhyanathan is uncomfortable with the erroneous misclassification of generations and associated assumptions of technology competency levels, and warns: ‘We should drop our simplistic attachments to generations so we can generate an accurate and subtle account of the needs of young people – and all people, for that matter.’

Perhaps the most sensible advice comes from Selwyn (2009) who argues that contrary to the popularist beliefs expressed in the Digital Natives discourse, young people’s engagement with technology is often unspectacular (Livingstone, 2009). According to Selwyn, accounts of Digital Natives are often based on anecdotal evidence, are inconsistent or exaggerated, and hold very little in common with the reality of technology use in the real world. The Digital Natives discourse tends to alienate older generations from technology, and teachers can make dangerous assumptions about the capabilities of young people (Kennedy et al, 2010). Selwyn counsels: ‘Whilst inter-generational tensions and conflicts have long characterised popular understandings of societal progression, adults should not feel threatened by younger generations’ engagements with digital technologies, any more than young people should feel constrained by the “pre-digital” structures of older generations’ (Selwyn, 2009, p. 376).

Arguably the most useful explanatory framework for current online activities is offered by White and Le Cornu (2011), who have argued that habitual use of technology develops sophisticated digital skills regardless of the age or birth date of the user. They call these users ‘Digital Residents’ and suggest that those who are ‘Digital Visitors’ are less likely to be digitally adept because of their casual or infrequent use of digital tools.

References
Bennett, S., Maton, K. and Kervin, L. (2008) The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence, British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (5), 775–786.
Carr, N. (2010) The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains.

New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Crook, C. and Harrison, C. (2008) Web 2.0 Technologies for Learning at Key Stages 3 and 4,Coventry: Becta Publications.
Greenfield, S. (2009) The Quest For Identity In The 21st Century. London: Sceptre.
Ito, M., Horst, H., Bittanti, M. and Boyd, D. (2009) Living and Learning with New Media. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jones C. and Healing G. (2010) Net Generation Students: Agency and Choice and the New Technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, (3), 344–356.
Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Dalgarnot, B. and Waycott, J. (2010) Beyond Digital Natives and Immigrants: Exploring Types of Net Generation Students, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26 (5), 332-343.
Livingstone, S.(2009) Children and the Internet. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Oblinger, D. (2003) Boomers, Gen-xers, and Millennials: Understanding the new students. Educause Review. 38 (4).
Palfrey, J. and Gasser, U. (2008) Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives.New York, NY: Basic Books.
Prensky, M. (2001) Digital Natives, Digital ImmigrantsOn the Horizon, 9 (5).
Rushkoff, D. (1996) Playing the Future: What we can learn from digital kids. London: Harper Collins.
Selwyn, N. (2011) The Digital Native: Myth and Reality. Aslib Proceedings,61 (4), 364-379.
Tapscott, D. (1998) Growing up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. New York: McGraw Hill.
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2008) Generation Myth.The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Veen, W. and Vrakking, B. (2006) Homo Zappiens: Growing up in a Digital Age London: Network Continuum Education.
White, D. S. and Le Cornu, A. (2011) Visitorsand Residents: A new typology for online engagement. First Monday, 16 (9).

Image source

[This is an excerpt from a forthcoming publication entitled: Personal Technologies in Education: Issues, Theories and Debates]


Theories for the digital age: The digital natives discourse by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Theories for the digital age: Connectivism

Learning in the industrialised world can now be contextualised within a largely technological landscape, where the use of digital media is assuming increasing importance.  Much of this learning is informal, (Commentators such as Cofer (2000), Cross (2006) and Dobbs (2000) place the proportion of informal learning at around 70%) and is also generally location independent.

The present technology rich learning environment is characterised by a sustained use of digital media, their integration into formal contexts, and a shift toward personalisation of learning. These facets of modern life in combination have led educators to question the validity of pre-digital age learning theories. In recent years a variety of new explanatory theories have been generated that can be applied as lenses to critically view, analyse and problematise new and emerging forms of learning. 

One highly visible theory is Connectivism (Siemens, 2004). Connectivism has been lauded as a ‘learning theory for the digital age’, and as such seeks to describe how students who use personalised, online and collaborative tools learn in different ways to previous generations of students. The essence of Siemens’ argument is that today, learning is lifelong, largely informal, and that previous human-led pedagogical roles and processes can be off-loaded onto technology. Siemens also criticises the three dominant learning theories, namely behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructivism, suggesting that they all locate learning inside the learner. His counterargument is that through the use of networked technologies, learning can now be distributed outside the learner, within personal learning communities and across social networks.

Perhaps the most significant contribution of Connectivist theory is the premise that declarative knowledge is now supplemented or even supplanted by knowing where knowledge can be found. In a nutshell, connectivism argues that digital media have caused knowledge to be more distributed than ever, and it is now more important for students to know where to find knowledge they require, than it is for them to internalise it. This places the onus firmly upon each student to develop their own personalised learning tools, environments, learning networks and communities within which they can ‘store their knowledge’ (Siemens, 2004). In McLuhan’s view, as we embrace technology, ‘our central nervous system is technologically extended to involve us in the whole of mankind and to incorporate the whole of mankind in us’ (McLuhan, 1964, p. 4). Clearly our social and cultural worlds are influenced by new technology, but are there also biological implications?

References

Cross, J. (2006) Informal Learning: Rediscovering the natural pathways that inspire innovation and performance. London: John Wiley and Sons. 

Cofer, D. (2000) Informal Workplace Learning. Practice Application Brief No. 10, U.S. Department of Education: Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.

Dobbs, K. (2000) Simple Moments of Learning. Training, 35 (1), 52-58.

McLuhan, M. (1964) Understanding Media. London: McGraw Hill.
Siemens, G. (2004) Connectivism: A LearningTheory for the Digital Age. eLearnspace. 

Image source

[This is an excerpt from a forthcoming publication entitled: Personal Technologies in Education: Issues, Theories and Debates]


Theories for the digital age: Connectivism by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Writer's block

Anyone who writes regularly will tell you this: There are times when you struggle to write something worthwhile ... or even anything at all. Call it writer's block, call it the white page syndrome (or white screen in the age of the word processor), call it whatever you wish - there are times when the words won't come, and there is very little you can do about it. At such times, I tend to either write rubbish and then ditch it (boy, you should read some of my rejects - you'd laugh yourself sick), or more likely, walk away from the page/screen and go and do something else instead.

Blog posting is a very immediate kind of writing, so you need to make sure you have done it correctly. Once you have clicked the Publish button, your ideas are out there for the whole world to read. It's publish and be damned. Lawrence Lessig said about blogging that it is 'the most important form of unchoreographed public discourse that we have.' Counter this with Katie Hafner's wry parodic comment 'never have so many people written so much to be read by so few' and you will see that there are ups and downs to blogging (the patron saint of ups and downs is St Francis of a Seesaw). No matter how good your blog post is, no matter how incisive, devastatingly witty or profound your points are, if there is no audience for your writing, you may as well be whistling in the wind. Just how you drive people to your blog though, is beyond the scope of this particular post (phew, escaped from that one).

So how do you start off writing a blog post, and avoid the writer's block syndrome? More importantly, how do you write something that is worthwhile writing? My advice is to just start writing. If it turns out to be rubbish, you can always discard it. But write you must. Find a memorable or inspirational quote to start you off. Sometimes an evocative image will set your thought processes going. Write about something you know about, have an opinion on, or feel passionately about. You can also be controversial. Draw on evidence that supports your viewpoint, but also find those who argue against and include those too, for some balance. Use language that is accessible and easy to understand. But don't compromise on your own writing voice, which is often the one tool you can wield with devastating effect in any writing genre. Most importantly, try to engage your reader. Address them personally. That's something that makes you want to keep reading, isn't it?

There are all sorts of bells and whistles you can put into a blog post, but I have elaborated on several of my own ideas already so I won't bore you again. Ultimately, you should write blog posts because you want to share your ideas and receive comments and feedback from your readership. When done correctly, blogging is not just writing - it's a conversation. As always I welcome your comments on this post.


Image by Daniel Gies

This post first appeared on 29 August 2011, on this blog


Writer's block? by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Learning with robots

In a previous blog post I wrote about learning by making, and discussed the theory of constructionism, which holds that we learn through immersing ourselves in, and engaging with situations. Not to be confused with constructivism (the theory first proposed in its cognitive form by Jean Piaget, and in its social form by Levrenti Vygotskii). A lot of research into learning by making was conducted by Seymour Papert, with notable learning tools such as the LOGO programming language being developed. As far as Papert is concerned, learning in this manner is important because it is a departure from transmission models of education, enabling us to construct and reconstruct knowledge in our own unique ways. One of the first uses for LOGO was to enable children to program a floor robot, giving it instructions to move around the room and perform simple tasks. This remains a very effective learning device - children love the idea of robots, and enjoy being able to control them. When used in conjunction with other talks, floor robots such as Beebot can become very powerful in introducing children to new ideas and new skills, and can encourage them to experiment, learn from their mistakes and develop higher cognitive processes.

This video demonstrates how the theory can be applied to scaffold children's numeracy skills



Learning with robots by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Working the system

One of the questions I discussed today with some of my third year teaching students was: what is the use of school exams? We discussed why we should put kids through the stress and anxiety of testing, when tests do little to help kids to learn meaningful things. Testing is essentially a snap shot of what the student knows when the test is administered. It's a very effective method of scaring kids to death, and it's also a very efficient method with which Governments can gather data to indicate how well the cohort of students in each school has had their heads crammed full of useless facts. And so, educators then find themselves 'teaching to the test', just so that they can give their students a better chance at passing with a reasonable grade. The more students in that school who get good grades, the higher the school will appear in the league tables. Yesterday I wrote about the way the UK Government has cynically manipulated recent test results, with disastrous consequences.

So what about the kids? Isn't school meant to be for their benefit? Exams do little to help children to learn deep and meaningful stuff they can later translate into the reality of life beyond the school gates. How much do I recall from the exams I swotted for? Not a lot. What exams teach children is that if they rote learn lots of facts, figures and information, they can manipulate the system. Being able to regurgitate this kind of surface knowledge onto a test paper to score as high a grade as possible is as far removed from education as it is possible to be. Exams are at best a test of memory and a snapshot of what students 'know' when the test is administered. The exam itself tells us nothing about how children will cope with the messy, complex problems they will face in real life, or how good they are for example, at working in a team. Exams tell us next to nothing about their creative abilities or their cognitive agility. Project work, continuous assessment and monitoring of progress are much more likely to be indicators of how well a child is doing in school.

Chris Husbands, Director of the Institute of Education, recently made a telling statement on the topic in the Guardian newspaper:

"I'm not sure there is any evidence that exams are an improvement device on their own. What improves education is improving teaching and learning. Where exams play a part is the extent to which they provide structures that encourage improved teaching and learning. It's really important that we have rigour in our assessment. It's also really important that we are clear about what rigour means. And rigour means assessing children and young people on the basis of the knowledge, skills and understanding that are going to prepare them for adult life."

Do we need an overhaul of the school examination system? I think in it's current format, it is broken beyond repair. I would be very interested to hear your views.

Calvin and Hobbes cartoon courtesy of Universal Press Syndicate


Working the system by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Moving the goalposts

Listening to the Welsh Minister for Education and Skills speak yesterday at the iNet Conference in Cardiff made me question once more the reasons for school exams. What Leighton Andrews AM had to say in his speech made me also question the sanity of those behind the recent GCSE exams fiasco in England. Schools are now resorting to legal action to challenge the UK Government's decision to downgrade the results of an entire national cohort of students.

Earlier this year, without any consultation or warning, grade boundaries were changed on the order of the UK Government exam watchdog Ofqual. Teachers who had prepared students for a particular grade expectation had the carpet pulled out from under their feet. Many students were disappointed by their downgraded results. Schools, students, teachers and parents all feel betrayed. And there is no comeback it seems. And yet the Welsh Assembly, which was devolved several years ago from Central Westminster control, took the bold and intelligent step to say 'no' to the results. As far as Leighton Andrews is concerned, the students who took the exams under one condition, should be marked under that same condition, and their grades upheld. He ordered the WJEC (Welsh examinations board) to regrade all the downgraded results so that students received the original grades they deserved. Andrews deserves a medal for his stand. He is one of very few who actually have the backbone to stand up and be counted on this issue. In his speech, Andrews asked how we could possibly expect school improvement, when devaluing examination results militates against their position in the school league tables? It's as if all schools are now being punished for simply following the rules.

The bottom line is this: In the UK, exams are used by Government more to provide indicators of school effectiveness than they are for providing students with qualifications. The GCSE qualifications are political footballs that are kicked around by both sides of the House, and ultimately, the metrics generated by each year's results are crunched together to produce school league tables. This disgraceful state of affairs has been happening for some time. Exams are no longer about giving students the opportunity to shine, to show what they have learnt. It is now purely a mechanism for data gathering. Yet according to some commentators, the current fiasco will render school league tables invalid, for this year at least.

Now we also have a politically motivated and grossly unfair assessment regime. Imagine Olympic athletes sprinting for the line, only to discover half way through the race that the finishing tape had been moved another few hundred metres down the track. Imagine if they had trained for 400 metres and then had to run 800 instead. Unfair? Yes it would be. Grossly unfair. And yet this is exactly the same trick that has been perpetrated upon an entire year of students. We cannot prepare children for examinations using one set of standards, and then impose a new set without warning. We don't move the goalposts halfway through a football game. Why did the UK Government sanction grade boundary changes right in the middle of an academic year? What message does this send to an entire generation of young people? I remarked in my speech at iNet that it was a real shame that the English could not devolve from Westminster as the Welsh have done. It raised a few smiles, but it was a serious remark.  Not only have the Welsh stood up against Westminster and refused to play the moving goal post game, they also banned standardised testing for under 16s throughout their school system. And for good reason.

Back in 2007, the General Teaching Council argued that school exams should be banned for children under 16 because the stress caused to young children was 'poisoniong attitudes toward education'. The GTC also called for a review of all standardised testing practices because there is no evidence that exams are improving school standards. The GTC was disbanded by the Government in 2010, as a part of its 'austerity' cutbacks. If exams are causing students unnecessary stress, and testing is not contributing toward school improvement, then why are we still persisting? One definition of madness is trying the same thing over and over again, in the hope that a different result might be obtained. There are many better methods of tracking student progress than exams.  Many assessment methods are substantially more effective in assessing for learning. Isn't it about time we had that review the GTC called for?

Photo by Walter Baxter


Moving the goalposts by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Questions, questions

All friend of mine recently told me that his child's school has complained to him about his son. It seems his son has been asking too many questions, and it's interfering with the running of the class. The young lad keeps asking why he has to do certain tasks in the lessons. Teacher is getting sick of having to justify everything she is doing. Oh dear. How disruptive. What an unruly child...

Actually, that teacher probably needs a kick up the backside. What was she thinking? Why would any teacher want to stop children questioning? Why would any school discourage children from asking 'why'? Surely, questioning is a fundamental part of learning at any age. Asking questions is always more effective than receiving answers, because it opens up all the possibilities and allows the questioner to frame the world in their own unique, individual way. From questions come other questions. From those come learning. Children need a psychologically safe environment within which they can question, explore and make mistakes, with no negative repercussions. The moment teachers stifle a child's curiosity is the moment school ceases to be relevant, to that child, to the community, to society at large. If ever there was an ideal place for children to be encouraged to ask 'why?' it has to be the school. The problem with the current school system is that far too many demands are placed on teachers, and there is little time left to spend on exploration and discovery.

More time and space needs to be allocated during the school day for thinking and questioning. Children need to ask questions, because it's a natural part of their cognitive development. But when the school systems as it stands, serves to knock their curiosity out of them, something has to change. It's interesting to read Sir Ken Robinson's take on this issue. He suggests that as children grow older, their curiosity and their creativity tend to decline. This is not because they are 'growing up' he says, but rather because they have been 'educated'. Schooling has knocked the curiosity out of them. Alvin Toffler once said 'We don't need to reform the system, we need to replace the system'. He could easily have been talking about schooling.

I had six faithful serving men, who taught me all I knew. Their names are what and why and when, and where and how and who.

Image source


Questions, questions by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Keep juggling

How many balls can you keep in the air at one time? One of the most interesting stands at the World of Learning Exhibition and Conference in Birmingham this week was the Blue Beetle Training stand, which among other rolling performances featured a 10 minute tuition on three ball juggling. Reminiscent of Simon Finch's finest Pelecon 2012 keynote moment, the presenter - Graham David - worked manfully to convince passing, reluctant delegates to stop for a while, and engaging them by showing them how easy it was to learn to keep three balls in the air continuously. It was great audience participation, and quite entertaining to watch, too. Yet there was a serious underlying message to be received, too.

Juggling is not easy, and takes a lot of practice. But in one sense we are all jugglers, because many of us regularly keep many 'balls in the air' including a full-time job, childcare and family duties, voluntary work, and so on. How many of us would like tuition in how to do that successfully? Take the job of teaching - how many things do we need to do simultaneously to be an effective teacher? What skills do we need to not only keep our heads above water in our jobs, but also to excel, to become the best we can possibly be in our chosen areas?

Blue Beetle Training is one of a number of companies popping up in the learning and skills sector that focus on developing creative and innovative new ways to learn. We certainly need more of that. Creative learning is going to be a growth area in Learning and Development, because many are tired of the old ways of training in rows. We have the technology, but that is not enough. We also need a sea change in the way learning and development are conceptualised. Learning by doing, particularly if that 'doing' is situated in work practices, is arguably one of the most effective ways of training employees effectively. Problem based leaning, simulations, learning by making (constuctionism) and experiential approaches to personal development have all been shown to be highly effective. Couple these with social learning mediated through the personal tools and devices that most employees carry around in their pockets (but many employers currently ban), and you have a very powerful, sustainable and lifelong method to be workers skilled and productive. Exactly what will your organisation be doing in the coming years to teach your employees how to juggle?

This week the World of Learning Conference and Exhibition celebrated its 20th anniversary at the NEC, Birmingham, UK.

Photo by Steve Wheeler


Keep juggling by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.