One step beyond

Earlier today on Twitter I said: 'To use any social media to its full potential in education you must venture beyond the classroom.' And I meant it. To achieve its optimum effect, the use of any social media - whether it be blogging, wikis or any other form of sharing of content - must breach the walls of the traditional learning space. Social media are time and space independent. They do not operate within, or rely upon, traditional ways of learning. Nor do they exist within a single timeframe. We need to see them in this context, not just as software and content on a computer screen, but as a gateway to a huge network of connections in an ever expanding global community. Facebook isn't just about friends and family anymore. It's about friends of friends, and connections to groups and online communities.

The ability to transcend the boundaries of the classroom is absolutely one of the best affordances social media provide. I have written in the past about opening up classrooms, not just the doors, to let others see what is happening and celebrate - but to let others in to the experience when they would previously have had no chance of sharing the joy of learning with you and your students. I wrote that open classrooms should also let your students out - to communicate, collaborate, and create together with other students across the globe. Traditional learning has never been that successful at achieving this, no matter how many exchange visits or pen pal schemes were instigated. Now we have the chance to take our classrooms out into the world on a global scale, never before possible.

The use of blogging, as several schools (primary/elementary and seconday/highschool) are already discovering, has the powerful potential to expand and extend students' experiences to a new level of enrichment, where interaction with students in other countries, or even just around the corner in the same city, are paying huge dividends. When they receive comments back from their peers, young bloggers are spurred on to write and create more and at a higher level of quality and achievement than ever before. It's a very powerful motivator.

The use of GPS in smartphones, working in concert with geo-specific social media such as Foursquare; the context aware systems now being introduced into museums and art galleries; QR tags and magic symbols; the Augmented Reality applications that are now proliferating - all of these and more are now avialable for teachers to exploit. We are merely limited to our own imaginations.

So what are we waiting for? Child safety and protection issues are always at the forefront of teachers' minds when they plan for blogging or other social media based learning activities. Health and safety, risk assessments for those venturing outside the coziness and 'safety' of the traditional classroom. All of these have to be considered, but if we make them an excuse for not being adventurous, we will miss the boat. Ask the outdoor schooling movement for their views on this. Let's set the kids free.

Image source by Paul Tomlin

One step beyond by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Yesterday's blog post

You are only as good as your last game - so goes the sporting maxim. And it's true - in sport you can't rest on your laurels, or live on past glories, because before you know it, some young pretender is ready to bury you, and you are suddenly second best. Fortunately, for most of us at least, the academic world usually isn't as cut-throat as that. But it is probably still true that you are only as good as your last journal article, book, or conference presentation. It's important to keep moving forward, because if you stand still, you stagnate and quickly lose touch with the leading edge of your profession. But are you as good as your last blog? Does yesterday's blog post still hold currency or must you continually press forward to write better, to expand on your ideas and elaborate your understanding of your subject?

Well, it's yes to both. Old ideas go out of date. But some old ideas are fine, and the great thing about academic blogging is that the more you write, the greater will be the repository of content you have written. As you post your ideas up on your blog, your archive of posts grows, and people still come to read them, weeks, months, sometimes even years after they have been published. My Teaching with Twitter post from January 2009 is still going strong with 12,000 views. It has been updated several times with new links to relevant related content. This is a little different to publishing a paper based journal article or book. Sure, people still read your article years down the road, but you are a hostage to your own fortune with published printed material. What you have written is there, preserved forever, including old ideas that are later outdated. Perhaps you subsequently rethink, revise or otherwise change your ideas as you learn more. Yet you can't change the printed word. Several times, I have revisited articles I published 5, 10 or even 15 years ago, and I think - ouch - I wish I could change that now.

Blogging is different. I can go back and change something I have written if I subsequently discover that I made a mistake (maybe just a typo, but perhaps even a fundamental error of theory, or a miscalculation) and change it. The new version is still time and date stamped for when I published it. But the content is now more accurate, relevant or appropriate to the message I originally intended. I can also delete something completely if I need to (I have never done this). You can't delete a journal article, and you can't change it once it's in print. All you can do is publish a retraction, but it's like hammering a nail into wood. You can remove the nail, but the hole remains (sometimes in your reputation).

We can debate the ethics of changing a blog post once it has been posted, and yes, there are those who take content under Creative Commons licensing and repurpose it, translate it, embed it. There's little that can be done about that. But with your own blog, you can be master of your own destiny. Should blog posts be changed once they have been published? I think it is up to each individual blogger to decide. What do you think?

Image source by Kristina Barnett

Yesterday's blog post by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Ten years of arguments

I know this is a strange title for a blog post, but let me explain: This week, in the north of the Czech Republic, I have just completed my tenth spell of teaching at the Technical University of Liberec. Each year, around half-term time in May, I am invited to teach a week of 'Argumentation and Rhetoric' to a group of international students of the University Neisse. What is argumentation and rhetoric? Well, as a psychologist, I interpret it as the study of interpersonal communication skills. To that end, when I was first invited to teach at University Neisse in 2002, I put together a 5 day programme which explored a number of social psychological theories around interpersonal skills, which involved lectures, demonstrations, discussion and games that focused on debating, argument and critical dialogue. Over the years I have included several social media elements including the use of blogs and wikis, when these were still seen as new in the education world.

Neisse is an international degree programme funded by the European Union through its Erasmus programme. Since 2002 almost 200 students have been through the classes, including many from Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland, as well as a small number of students from Vietnam, Nigeria, China and, in my current group - from Egypt. One of my students today came up to me and asked me why I keep coming back to teach at Neisse every year. I thought for a few seconds and then replied that I enjoyed the challenge of teaching multi-ethnic groups of students. It's the only chance I get each year to teach students from so many different countries, all together in one classroom. The mix is a dynamic one, full of possibilities, and you never know what is going to emerge during the discussion sessions. Today we enjoyed a particularly animated debate on genetic engineering where some of the group became quite vocal about whether they should, or could argue from a perspective they didn't actually agree with. Others in the group responded that if one wasn't familiar with the other person's perspective, then it was difficult to argue effectively. And this is what Neisse is really all about - in their first year of study, the group lives together in Liberec, Czech Republic. In their second year, they move to the University of Wroclaw, in Poland. They complete their third year of study at the University of Görlitz, in Germany. During this time, they learn not only their own academic subject of information and communication management, but also take on board all the customs, social nuances and languages of the other nations, and of course they learn very good technical and conversational English in the process.

In conversation today with one of the leading lights of Neisse, Professor Jaroslav Vild, I asked what was the main aim of the Neisse programme. He told me that central Europe has had a history of ethnic tensions and problems in the past, including wars of course. University Neisse is a small part of the movement focused on bringing young people together from diverse backgrounds, to mould them into a force for better international understanding. I have completed 10 years teaching at University Neisse this week. If they invite me back, I won't say no.

Image source by Sludgegulper

Ten years of arguments by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Back stage front stage

Today I enjoyed an interesting chat with Dr. Robert Nagy over lunch in Liberec, in the North of the Czech Republic. Robert is a lecturer both at the Technical University of Liberec and also at Charles University in Prague. He's a fellow psychologist, and we had a lot to chat about subsequent to him sitting in on one of my sessions this morning.

I was discussing one of my favourite theories with the group - Erving Goffman's Drama model of social interaction. Goffman suggests that each of us attempts to 'manage our impression' before our 'audience' as if we were performing on a stage. Front stage representation draws upon scripts, costumes, roles and props, as each person tries to present themselves in their most favourable manner. Back stage is different - this is the region where we are at our most informal, and where we let our guard down. I was applying Goffman's theory to online spaces such as social networks. I asked the group how many of them had a Facebook account. Of course, as I expected, everyone did. Next we discussed how people represent themselves on Facebook through their profiles, pictures, games they play, groups they join, and people they 'friend' online. Part of the downside of Facebook, I reminded them, is when you (or someone else) posts images of yourself onto the site. It's difficult to remove them once they are posted, and if they are tagged, it is easy to find them. Most people don't mind this, we agreed, but if an image is inappropriate (falling out of a pub at 3 am, the worse for wear), this may work against you when you apply for a job and your prospective employer decides to check you out on Facebook.

The problem, I theorised, is that many Facebook users perceive the social network as a 'back stage' area where they can let their hair down a little, remove their mask, relax and banter with their friends, and generally say what they want to. The mistake of course, is that Facebook is quite public (depending on how you manage your privacy controls) and open to many people to view. In reality it is a front stage region, yet with your guard down, you are likely to make a public fool of yourself if you are not careful and think you are bacjstage. The rules of social interaction, I suggested, are changing.

Afterwards, over lunch, Robert expressed doubt that the rules are actually changing. His argument is that most social conventions are usually quite rigid and that bad or good behaviour is the same, whatever platform, real or virtual, it is acted out upon. To an extent I agreed, but I pointed out that some conventions are in fact changing because of new affordances being introduced by technology. What is considered rude or aggressive by one person may not be seen as such by another. An innocent text message sent by one person may be construed by its recipient to be offensive or threatening. This may be due to a reduction in social cues, or simply not enough supplementary information being embedded within the text. Failure to include emoticons, or other 'non-textual' communication may render the message void of emotion, and then readers are left up to their own devices to decide whether the message is in fact ironic, or sent with some malice. Lack of experience in an online environment may lead the recipient to take the least form of resistance and miscontrue the message.

For me, the rules of engagement are changing to adapt to the technology that is increasingly mediating our conversations. The reduced or 'squeezed' text that is redolent of short message services such as mobile texting has spawned a new style of communication. If you are on the inside you will ROFL when you read the message. If you are on the outside, and not used to this style of communication, you may very well take offense or miss the point. So are the rules of social interaction changing, or are they the same as they ever were, just dressed up in a different form?

Image source by Slimmer_Jimmer


Back stage front stage by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Misplaced ICT

I'm firmly of the opinion that Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in schools is misplaced and therefore misused. In essence, the way it is conventionally deployed negates much of the potential of ICT, and unless there is a dramatic reappraisal, we won't be witnessing much in the way of learning gains in schools. Here's my argument in two points:

My first argument is that ICT is almost always delivered in schools as if it were a subject to be studied. It is not a subject, and never has been. ICT represents a set of tools which should be embedded across every subject in the curriculum. As it stands, this will never be fully realised, because ICT is delivered as a discrete subject. Let's not confuse ICT with computing. Computing is a subject in its own right. You can do a computing degree at most universities. By contrast ICT is simply a set of very powerful tools that enable children to learn other things. Why waste valuable contact time teaching kids how to create PowerPoint slides, or how to write a webpage? They can be spending their time doing much more important things in the classroom, and many probably already know how to do the basics anyway.

My second argument is, why do schools spend so much of their resources creating ICT suites? This is quite clearly placing all your eggs in one basket, where only one class at a time can gain access to valuable if not essential resources. Computers are tools just as pencils or calculators are tools. But we don't set up pencil suites or special calculator rooms in schools, do we? I damn well hope not, anyway. As Craig Taylor so eloquently stated this week in his discussion on redesigning learning spaces:

"Lose the ICT suite. This only serves to isolate technology from current learning activities as opposed to embedding it within them. It also stands empty for the majority of the time, which is a waste of space and resources. IT access could still be gained by providing netbooks/laptops to each learner attending events. These can be kept in purpose built storage/charging trolleys. Coupled with a WiFi connection this will allow learners to connect to the outside world as opposed to relying solely on the knowledge that is being shared amongst the facilitator/delegates, a great example of social constructivism. A modern approach to learning which fits with a modern building."

I couldn't have put it better myself. Another problem with positioning ICT within one room is that children get themselves into the mindset that 'this is where we use the computer.' I would actually go farther than Craig (who speaks from a corporate training context) by arguing that children should be using handheld, wireless devices around the school, rather than lugging around laptops or netbooks. The vast amounts of money that have been invested in expensive ICT suites should be diverted to this kind of untethered learning instead. This way they are being prepared for learning on the move, in an increasingly mobile world. Craig makes a very valid observation in his post that the separation of ICT from all other learning spaces engenders a perception that ICT and learning are somehow separate. They should not be, of course. ICT should be embedded into all learning activities as is appropriate. This brings me back to my first argument about ICT not being a subject, but rather being a set of tools for learning. I hope you get the point.

Image source by ejk

Misplaced ICT by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Free thinking

A lot of stuff never gets done because it's 'against the rules'. Rules and regulations are the bane of creativity, and can stop innovation dead in its tracks. Every organisation has an IPD - an Innovation Prevention Department which is there to ensure that the rules are abided by, and that nothing happens without a rubber stamp of approval.

My reading of 'The Facebook Effect' recently has led me to believe that mavericks and anarchists - those who tend to bend the rules, or simply ignore them - are at the centre of many creative projects, and in some cases actually become the gamechangers. Mark Zuckerberg and his Harvard student friends have radically changed the way we communicate with each other, and they have changed it on a global level. Regardless of your opinion of Facebook, you would probably agree that it was a game changer. Zuckerberg was not, and is not someone who 'tows the line'. He got into trouble while at Harvard and ever since, he has led an edgy existence at the vanguard of a movement which has fractured many of the social conventions that existed prior to the advent of online social networking.

Zuckerberg isn't the only one who has kicked against the rules and bent them to get where he needs to go. Richard Branson, in his recent book 'Screw it, let's do it,' also admits to being a maverick (but we all knew that anyway). He says 'Though I have never followed the rules at every step, I have learned many lessons along the way. I am still learning and I hope I never stop.' Branson has carved out, time and time again, business opportunities that have broken the conventional mould with outrageous success. Beside their vast fortunes, what do Zuckerberg and Branson have in common? They are both free thinkers. They disregard the structure and restrictions of their surroundings, and dream up new ways to circumvent the constraints imposed upon them by 'the rules.' For them, the way forward is to 'just do it.'

There are many other free thinkers I could talk about - in the field of art (Picasso, Monet, Pollock), music (Mozart, Stockhausen, the Beatles), and science (Einstein, Darwin, Edison) - who were renowned for bending the rules and sometimes ignoring them. Creativity in this sense, is not so much about building on old models (although this is sometimes the case), nor is it about extemporisation around a known theme. No, it is more to do with what Margaret Boden called 'transformational creativity' where scant regard for what is acceptable or achievable, is replaced by the will to make something happen regardless of the constraints, the rules, the expected.

Is this the kind of ethos we see in our schools, colleges, universities? As teachers are we fostering a sense of the impossible in our learners, and are we nurturing dreamers and entrepreneurs? Or are we instead continuing to impose rules and constraints which are no longer necessary or simply outmoded, because 'it has always been done that way?' Carl Rogers, a free thinker in his own right, once made it clear that the educational situation which most effectively promotes significant learning is one in which 1) threat to the self of the learner is reduced to a minimum, and 2) differentiated perception of the field of experience is facilitated (Smith, 2004)

In clear language, this means that people learn best when they feel that they are under no constraints to express themselves and when they are given licence to change things and make them personal. How could this be applied to our own classrooms, and how many of us as teachers facilitate free thinking within our practice? Next time, don't ask for permission. Just do it.

'It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission'

Image source by Jack Lyons


Free thinking by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Danger Dog, Pandora and a cast of thousands

The highlight of yesterday's student education conference at the University of Plymouth was the final keynote speech from Deputy Headteacher Dave Mitchell. Dave has carved out quite a reputation for himself as a champion of blogging for early years children. Much press and media coverage has celebrated the many and varied successes the school has achieved through good pedagogy and the appropriate application of social media tools. It was fitting then that he should have the last word at the #earlyyears event held in the Faculty of Education.

Dave (aka @DeputyMitchell on Twitter) talked about the way he has established blogging as an inspirational tool to promote more engagement in learning for primary school age kids. He documented the rise in success of blogging at Healthfield CPS, a Primary School in Bolton, North West England. From the early stages, where parents and peers were engaged, to the latter stages, where Year 6 children (10-11 year olds) are writing creatively for a worldwide audience, Dave explore the nuances and practices of educational blogging. Dave presented some astounding statistics for his audience. Since the start of this academic year, the Year 6 blog alone has received more than 200,000 hits worldwide, and over 4000 comments from readers in over 130 countries. Such an audience (some would argue 'community') of people does wonders for the self esteem and confidence of the young bloggers. They are articulate, inventive and fully committed to blogging their way to better standards of literacy, and in the samples Dave showed, they are clearly succeeding. From The Island and Pandora (Avatar alien planet) projects, to the random appearances of Danger Dog, these kids write about anything that grabs their interest, and the teachers turn these ideas into learning that locks into the National Curriculum. The children have even appeared live (at 0740 in the morning) on BBC's Breakfast programme, where they were interviewed as they blogged. But this is not the end of the story.

Dave Mitchell showed evidence that all Year 6 pupils in the scheme had each (through teacher assessment and the more formalised SATs tests) gained an average of 6.6 points on the literacy scale. This is equivalent to almost two years of development in writing and reading skills. Whilst it is important we don't point to the blog as the only catalyst in this amazing success story, it is clear that blogging has had a major influence on these young lives, and the audience they write for has more than an impact on their enthusiasm to learn. Dave finished his presentation by bringing in one of his small groups live onto the screen using Coverit Live. Through the posting of images and sounds, he asked his pupils to respond by writing live what they felt and thought. It was clear to the audience that this group of young people are just as articulate in their writing, using rich combinations of adjectives and syntax to convey their ideas to us, their new audience. Some have even broken away from the main school blog to set up personal blogs of their own, such is their passion for writing. Dave left us all, students and lecturing staff alike, with the impression that if the right tools are employed in the right place at the appropriate time, learning will have no boundaries.

Image source by Lee12 (Heathfield CPS)

Danger Dog, Pandora and a cast of thousands by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Open door classrooms

It was always the case, in every school I ever attended (9 in total) that once the door was closed, the lesson began and the teacher was in charge. Even now, as a classroom practitioner myself, I sometimes joke - 'close the door so people outside won't hear the screaming.' The connotation of closed door classrooms is that no-one sees or hears what goes on except the teachers and the students, who are all locked in, until the bell sounds. But this literal expression of a closed classroom can also represent an underlying philosophy. And I ask, are classrooms in schools, colleges and universities as closed conceptually as they are literally?

I have written and spoken in the past about openness and the need for open educational practices. I have enthused about the benefits of open scholarship, and the ability of all teachers to share their resources, knowledge and expertise without cost to others, to promote free exchange of learning. My last two posts have focused on the use of student owned devices in the classroom, and the fact that the use of sharing technology can extend your teach reach to a worldwide audience. It's clear that we need to open up classrooms in a different way. I'm not talking about taking the door off its hinges, or even taking the class down to the seaside for a lesson (although I would really have enjoyed that in school ...) No, I'm talking here about opening up what is happening in classrooms, so that others who are outside the immediate zone of learning can also participate.

It is happening in some schools. Many schools are using videoconferencing links to connect with schools in other countries to facilitate cultural exchange and language learning. The next step would be to enable live web streaming, dynamic social networking and Twitter backchannels to operate while classroom sessions are in progress. Think of all the archived learning resources that could be generated for later, on demand use. Think of all the live interaction, dialogue and discussion that could take place during such lessons.

What would be the barriers that would prevent this from happening? Teacher insecurity would be one (I don't want people from outside seeing what goes on in my classroom - particularly the parents!). Most teachers are used to people coming into the classroom to observe though - throughout their careers, from teaching practice observations during their initial training, to the head teacher dropping by to have a look at how their most experienced teachers are working in the classroom. Should this be a barrier?

Child safety/privacy is another concern. What if nasty people are watching in - what personal details might be inadvertently divulged? What if remote viewers start taking photographs? That would depend I guess, on where the classroom cameras and mics were pointed/situated.

One other issue I can think of is whether some schools might want their classrooms opened up for the world to see. Are they proud to showcase what goes on in their classrooms, or would they rather hide away what takes place? That depends on the teacher I guess, and the school, er.... and the behaviour of the students...

Here's the bottom line... with the advent of personal handheld devices, how long will it be before classroom learning is streamed out into the world regularly? How long will it be before open, worldwide classrooms are the norm rather than the exception?

Image source by Jack Hill

Open door classrooms by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Student owned devices

An interesting question was raised today during the Effective Teaching and Learning in a Digital Age event at the University of Birmingham. Organised by the Higher Education Academy, the one day conference attracted around 40-50 people from a number of universities across the UK. One of the invited speakers was Professor John Traxler (University of Wolverhampton) who spoke on how mobile technologies are extending and enhancing learning. In a 'hot off the press' publication from the HEA, which he also edited, John writes about mobile technologies, (of which he includes smart-phones, media players, games consoles, netbooks and handheld computers):

"By now almost everyone owns one and uses one, often more than one. Not only do they own them and use them but they also invest considerable time, effort and resource choosing them, buying them, customising them and exploiting them. These handheld devices express part or much of their owners' values, affiliations, identity and individuality through their choice and through their use. They are both pervasive and ubiquitous, both conspicuous and unobtrusive, both noteworthy and taken-for-granted in the lives of most people. This explains in part why mobile learning is not just e-learning on mobile devices; it also hints that we might leverage learners' own devices and in doing so take education into new modes, spaces and places." (Traxler, 2011, p 4-5)

The entire 44 page booklet, published by HEA Subject Centre for Education (ESCalate) is a thoroughly good read, but the paragraph above has provoked some discussion already. Here's the question: Should students' personal devices become a part of the delivery strategy in higher education, or indeed elsewhere in other sectors? If student owned devices are brought into play (and in many contexts they already have been) what issues are raised?

What about digital exclusion? Some students don't own personal devices such as mobile- or smart-phones. Would any widespread or persistent use of such devices cause them to be digitally excluded and thus disadvantaged? On another issue, if student owned devices are personal, they will no doubt contain a great deal of personal data and information. Would the integrity of these personal data be compromised at all during everyday use in a formal education context? What safeguards might institutions put into place to ensure that this would not occur? Finally, is it ethical or indeed desirable to ask students who have purchased their personal devices, to use them for purposes they may not have expected them to be used for? What about wear and tear, or accidental damage of the devices during learning? Who would pay for replacement or repair, or insure the devices during these kind of activities. OK, I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I wonder what other possible objections might be raised in relation to student being asked to use their own personal devices in formal education? Your omments are as ever, most welcome.

Reference
Traxler, J. (2011) Introduction, in: J. Traxler and J. Wishart (Eds.) Making mobile learning work: Case studies of practice. Bristol: The Higher Education Academy.

Image source by ilamont

Student owned devices by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

The world is your classroom

I want to inspire you to reach farther. Most teachers are limited to their classroom, or to the environment within which they and their students can interact. Some may be fortunate enough to escape from the classroom to lead outdoor education trips, or work within a forest school, spending class time exploring and learning from their surroundings. Some teachers are even lucky enough to conduct a comparative studies trip in a foreign country. Most teachers though, usually find themselves trapped within the four walls of the classroom or lecture hall for much of their working week. And yet with the new social media tools, we can all be worldwide educators. All we need is something important to say, and a tool such as this blog as a vehicle to say it with.

It never ceases to amaze me how many students contact me to say how much they enjoy reading this blog. Some have told me how much it has inspired them to learn more, explore, take risks, and reach further. This kind of positive affrirmation is very important to me and to other edubloggers. Personally, it's one of the main reasons I continue to blog and invest my time in it. Knowing that what I'm writing, and the richness of the subsequent dialogue are having a such positive impact on someone, is one of the main reasons I blog so regularly.

This morning I happened to stumble upon an interesting Twitter stream hashtag - #qaz11 - which I quickly realised was being generated by a group of students in the care of my old friend Jose Luis Garcia (well worth following him on Twitter: @JL3001, over at the University of Cantabria in Spain. Although the tweets were in Spanish, I was able to translate them using Tweetdeck, and I followed for a little while. The students were discussing the merits of the 10 Teaching with Twitter activities I posted on this blog. It was interesting to see them analyse and evaluate the potential of each of the activities within their own professional context as trainee teachers. Without me actually being there, my thoughts were having an impact on the students' learning - my ideas were helping them to frame their thinking, promote discussion and engage critically with the topic.

The same is happening all over the world, every hour, every day as teachers begin to share their ideas and advice, best practice and top tips across a global platform - the blog. We have become a new breed of teacher Quite literally, we are worldwide educators, with students in every country of the world, who read our blogs, think, argue, learn and then go off to try out some ideas. We don't always see them, and we may never meet them, but they are there, and they are learning.

So don't limit yourself to seeing the four walls of your classroom as the full extent of your world. Reach further - and become a worldwide educator. You have the technology.

Multi-media brought the world into your classroom. Social media will take your classroom into the world.

Image source by Woodleywonderworks



The world is your classroom by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Rock and a hard place

Earlier today Shelly Terrell tweeted that she would prefer to see schools invest in mobile technologies than in Interactive White Boards (IWBs). Here's what she said: "Personally, I feel $$ better spent on mobile devices in classrooms vs IWBs." Actually, I can see her reasoning behind this, because although I have observed some excellent learning and teaching using IWBs in some schools, they are few and far between. Many teachers I have watched tend to use IWBs like an expensive display board. They won't let smaller hands anywhere near it. Perhaps the boards are positioned wrongly on walls so the kids can't reach them, as in Neil Selwyn's account Revisiting the promise of digital technology in schools. Perhaps the teacher simply wants to maintain control of the classroom, and feels that letting kids interact with the screen might unleash some kind of diabolical anarchy. Kids at the front of the class? Never! They should be sat down behind their desks, listening quietly, making notes! 'Elf and safety mate. Perhaps the teacher thinks the kids might damage the board, because after all, IWBs can be expensive to repair? Sticky fingers all over the board - not on my watch my friend. Or perhaps, most likely, the teacher is too hard pressed for time to dream up activities in which the children can actually leave their seats and interact with the resources on the screen.

It's a shame, really it is. When kids are allowed to interact with the IWBs in the ways they were intended to be used, there is a great deal of excitement, and a lot of engaged learning. When they are not allowed to touch the screen, it becomes just another teaching tool, and it's a 'so what?' from the class. I have seen both in the classroom, and I know which one I prefer to watch.

Mobile phones are different. Many children have them, and they are very adept at using them, but usually only to send texts or access their Facebook accounts. How many of them would actually consider using their phone to access learning? And waht's worse, many schools have imposed a ban on mobile phones in the classroom, because they consider there is greater potential to disrupt, bully, subvert or otherwise use the devices in ways too nefarious to mention.

Perhaps Shelly meant that schools should invest in iPads, or the more affordable mini-iPads? (er, I mean iPod Touches) Now there's an idea. I can think of a whole raft of ideas for learning activities using iPods as a tool. Then there are games consoles such as the Nintendo DS with its Pictochat features. We could go on - the world, as Del Boy once said, is our lobster.

Here's my take. It would be a shame to abandon the Interactive White Board in favour of mobile devices, just because many teachers can't seem to use them in an engaging way. The same could apply to handheld mobile devices, if teachers haven't got the time to think up good uses, or there is not enough cash available to purchase them because - well, the budget has all been spent on installing IWBs that are not gong to be used properly. Hmmm. I think we're caught between a rock and a hard place. Anyone know a way out?

Image source by Rob Schenk

Rock and a hard place by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

The natives are revolting

I was deliberately provocative on Twitter this morning when I tweeted this:

In just a few hours I had responses of all hues and colours, some agreeing, some disagreeing, many wanting more flesh to be put on the subject. So here, just for the record are my own, and other people's thoughts on the controversy of Marc Prensky's Digital Natives and Immigrants theory. Prensky originally suggested that those who were born before the digital age are immigrants, whilst those who have grown up with technology are the natives. The implications for this dichotomy?

Children don't need instruction manuals to use technology - they expect the device to teach them. Older people - the immigrants - can't multitask like younger 'natives' can, because they are not as immersed in the gaming culture, and therefore don't live at 'twitch speed'. Older people have a foot in the past, and speak technology with an 'accent' that they cannot lose, while younger people are naturally adept at using new and emerging technologies. OK, this is a potted version of Prensky's article, and you can read the entire thing for yourself at the link above. I won't begin to deconstruct his ideas on the supposed 'cognitive changes' he suggests are taking place in the heads of younger users. I'll leave that for another blog post.

A welter of similar terminologies have emerged alongside Prensky's 2001 distinction. Veen and Vrakking published an entire book dedicated to an analysis of ' Homo Zappiens ', whilst Diane Oblinger, Don Tapscott and others popularised the now oft repeated phrase 'Net Generation'. Other terms, such as 'Net Savvy Youth', 'Screenagers' and the 'Google Generation' played on a supposed distinction between age groups, and in doing so, created a dangerous perception that the two really were somehow different. As a response to this feeding frenzy, Mark Bullen set up a blogsite entitled 'Net Gen Skeptic', which he has used to attempt to debunk much of the rhetoric that has been generated on the subject. Bullen actually speaks a lot of sense, and in a recent interview said:

"...my basic point is that the claims about this generation are not based on research. They are speculations that emerge from anecdotal observations and from a techno-utopic view of the world and a fascination with technology. I don’t dispute that this generation is different than previous generations. Every generation differs from the previous in some way. The social, political and technological context changes so this is bound to have an impact on the people growing up at that time. But before we start making radical changes to the way to do things in education we need some evidence." (from Open Education.net)

Bullen goes on to warn of the dangers that lurk when politicians and school leaders swallow the digital natives theory whole and assume that policy and provision should be based upon it:

"...there is an assumption that because this generation is much more immersed in digital technologies for primarily social and recreational purposes that they a) want to use them for educational purposes and b) will be skilled at using these technologies for educational purposes. I have yet to see any evidence to support these assumptions. Also, some of the claims are the same or very similar to claims that have been made about every generation of young people: impatient, social, prefer to learn by doing, and goal oriented." (from Open Education.net)

The message is clear: teachers should not assume that because many children are adept at using new and emerging technology, that they are able to apply them freely in formalised learning contexts such as school. Nor as a result, should they shy away from using technology in the classroom with the fear that 'the children will know more about it than me' - children may have skills in the use of technology, but teachers have the skills and the knowledge to create engaging and exciting learning opportunities and environments. Technology is simply a part of that equation.

JISC has also produced a research based rebuttal of the Google Generation and several other evidence based refutations have recently been published, including Neil Selwyn's Digital Natives: The Myth and the Reality in which he provides a measured commentary of the difficulties the theory imposes upon education. The Chronicle has weighed in with its own report entitled Generational Myth while a useful critical review of the digital natives debate so far, has been captured by Bennett et al in the British Journal of Educational Technology. Finally, David White (University of Oxford) has proposed his own alternative theory - the Residents and Visitors theory, which is not based on the false distinction of age, but rather on perceptions of usefulness and habituation within digital environments. The evidence is now stacking up that there is indeed a lot of doubt being cast over the digital natives and immigrants theory. It's interesting that although Marc Prensky has revised his theory, with a much more measured 'digital wisdom' approach, many people are either ignorant of it, or simply choose to continue to subscribe to, and quote from the digital natives theory. Perhaps it conveniently suits their purpose....?


The natives are revolting by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.