Three things

There are three things we need to know about learning for this generation. The first is that learning needs to be personalised. As I argued in a previous post, learning must be differentiated, because one size does not fit all, and standardised curricula and testing are not fit for purpose in the 21st Century. Personal learning is unique to each learner. The tools and devices students choose, and the pathways they decide to take are in many ways beginning to challenge the synchronised and homogenised approaches we still practice in schools, universities and organisations.

Secondly, learning needs to be social. Much of what we learn comes from contact and communication with others. Increasingly, such contact and communication is mediated through technology, and social media tools are ideal for this purpose. The celebrated Russian psychologist Lev Vygotskii proposed the idea of learning being extended when children are mentored by a knowledgeable other person. His Zone of Proximal Development theory has been central to our understanding of how we learn in social contexts. Yet in recent years, with the proliferation and equalisation of knowledge and the strengthening of social connections through digital media, new theories such as connectivism and paragogy have emerged to challenge the central place of ZPD in contemporary pedagogical theory. We need to ask whether we now need knowledgeable others such as subject experts to help us extend our learning when we have all knowledge at our fingertips. Now many learners are exploiting the power of social media to build and engage with equals in personal learning networks.

Thirdly, learning needs to be globalised. As we develop personal expertise, and begin to practice it in applied contexts, we need to connect with global communities. Students who share their content online can reach a worldwide audience who can act as a peer network to provide constructive feedback. Teachers can crowd-source their ideas and share their content in professional forums and global learning collectives, or harness the power of social media to access thought leaders in their particular field of expertise. Scholars who are not connected into the global community are increasingly isolated and will in time be left behind as the world of education advances ever onward.

Photo by Steve Wheeler


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

You can't walk where I walk

Someone once told me that life is like a fast moving stream. You can put your foot into it, and even let it flow over you for a while, but you can never put your foot into the same river twice. That's quite profound, but there is something even more profound. It is this: You can't walk where I walk. In other words, you can't experience what I experience. We may be sat watching the same movie or TV programme. We may read the same book, participate in the same conversation, or sit in the same lecture. But your experience will be different to my experience. We may come away with similar messages or impressions of what we have observed or experienced, but because we are unique individuals, we are by nature different to each other, and our perceptions will also be different. That is one very important reason why in schools, standardised testing, homogenised curricula and batch processing by age need to be changed for more personalised approaches to education.

It's all down to individual perception - what psychologists call the 'representation of reality'. My reality is slightly different to yours and yours from mine. It has little to do with you and I viewing the same thing from slightly different angles, although sometimes that can be a factor in creating different perceptions. No, it's not about different angles, it's about different perspectives. A number of variables cause each of us to view life uniquely, and to represent reality from different perspectives, including our age, gender, culture, background, health, preferences, personal beliefs, in fact just about everything that wire our brains uniquely, and make us individuals. When teachers attempt to differentiate learning, they generally focus on aptitude and ability or in some cases, whether a student has a disability. Some teachers are sidetracked into considering 'learning styles' but that is a big mistake, as I have previously discussed. Carl Rogers advocated 'unconditional positive regard', a philosophy that plays out when every student is considered to be of equal worth in the classroom, regardless of their previous 'form'.

What teachers should be focused upon is the whole child, and how they perceive life and represent reality differently to everyone else in the room. Differentiation should encourage diversity not simply make provision for it. It should celebrate the fact that we are all different, and include every single voice in the classroom, giving each an equal weight. That's hard to achieve, but with some fore thought and practice, and a great deal of patience, teachers can encourage each student to participate fully and play to their individual strengths. We are not that different from each other really. We all have the same needs, to be respected, to feel we belong to the group and to have a voice. Each of us is the same, but in uniquely different ways. If you can understand that, then you will understand why you can't walk where I walk.

Photo by Steve Wheeler


You can't walk where I walk by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

We need a rethink

There's a very useful and refreshing article by Tom Barrett in this week's TES Magazine entitled 'Education needs to plug into Web 2.0'. Never before have I read an article that I agree with so completely. Those of us who are immersed in a world where the use of social media is so sustained, embedded and familiar, forget that many schools still ban the use of Web 2.0 type tools in their classrooms. Tom has some advice for schools who are in this category, and I quote:

"Perhaps one of the biggest barriers to engaging with the social web in schools is the perceived issue of safety: many teachers say they are left feeling helpless when pupils' work is available on the World Wide Web. I have been blogging with classes for eight years and these common-sense guidelines always work:

1) Be open to parents and allow them to share any concerns.
2) Moderate all comments before they are posted online.
3) Have a clear and robust e-safety policy.
4) Work within the school policy on images of children on blogs.
5) Publish a set of blogging guidelines on your site and share them with parents.
6) Make sure the whole school community is aware of your work."

Common sense indeed, but I would also add that schools should encourage and permit children to help teachers co-create the e-safety and school policies on social media use. They use these tools outside of the school on a daily basis and often have a sophisticated grasp on how social media work. Who better to inform schools than the users themselves?

I once spoke at an event where a school leader remarked that his school had banned access to blogging, YouTube and all other social media because 'they are dangerous'. I countered by asking him whether we should also stop teaching children how to cross the road, because traffic is dangerous too? I think he got the message. Where better to teach children about the dangers and risks of using the Internet, than in school? I think a rethink is very much overdue.

Whether this blog post, or Tom's article, or any number of other good pieces of advice will have an impact on the impasse many schools find themselves in with relation to social media use in schools, remains to be seen. But just a few moments thinking about the risks (and balancing those up against the clear benefits social media have in schools who do allow them) should convince most school leaders that adopting social media in the classroom really is the best way forward.

Image source


We need a rethink by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Authentic learning

In his 1970 book Deschooling Society, the radical philosopher Ivan Illich wrote: 'Most learning is not the result of instruction. It is rather the result of unhampered participation in a meaningful setting. Most people learn best by being "with it," yet school makes them identify their personal, cognitive growth with elaborate planning and manipulation.' 

This is a real challenge to many schools. Some of the most effective learning methods involve students doing and making, problem solving, and playing games, all of which comply with the notion of being in a meaningful setting. This kind of situated learning is powerful because it immerses students in contexts that are authentic. Medical students learn through problem based learning, often a complex situated form of education that places them in the role of decision maker. Pilots do a lot of their training in simulators, where 'real life' problems and challenges can be presented to them, and to which they must respond. This kind of learning, according to Jean Lave (1988), is powerful because it is rooted in context, and avoids much of the abstract nature of content that is delivered traditionally. Brown, Collins and Duguid (1989) agree, believing that authentic learning contexts are vitally important if students are to acquire and develop cognitive skills that are transferable to real world living. 

So how do we bring these powerful ideas into school classrooms? Often, we see children bored or demotivated because they are presented with content that is abstract and meaningless, or without a specific context or 'situatedness'. It's not all bad news though. There is evidence that some schools are beginning to adopt authentic learning methods. Saltash.net, a school near to my home, managed to get around this issue by placing children in situations where they had to use tools and techniques to solve real life problems. In their small working farm located within the grounds of the school, they kept chickens, pigs and goats. The children took turns managing the farm, and were often required to purchase food for the animals, or sell eggs at the market. To do this they needed to know about how a market operates, and had to understand concepts such as supply and demand, profit and loss, sell by dates, and so on. Teaching them how to use an Excel spreadsheet would have been dull and boring if it was kept within the four walls of a classroom or ICT suite. Taking this skill outside and putting them in a position where they had to learn by applying spreadsheets to the problem of buying of corn and the selling of eggs at a good price and maintaining records placed their learning within a meaningful setting. There are endless examples of situated learning in a school near you. 

In one American school I visited, teachers chose two students each day who were tasked to edit and present the following day's morning news programme on school radio. All of the children took it in turns to be the morning DJs and news presenters, and their responsibility was to make sure their school was kept up to date on current affairs through their research, editing, filtering and presentation. Many schools in the UK are adopting the School Radio approach too, and children are relishing the challenge of informing their classmates and teachers, deciding on music playlists, reporting on weather and sport, while acquiring authentic critical, organisational and reflective skills. This is learning by stealth, and it is incredibly powerful.

Ultimately, it is the teacher's role to create learning contexts that support authentic learning. If teachers can situate learning in meaningful contexts and real life (or realistic) settings, not only will students become more motivated, they will also acquire authentic transferable skills that they can call upon for the rest of their lives.

References
Brown, J.S., Collins, A. and Duguid, S. (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Illich, I. (1970) Deschooling Society. London: Marion Boyars Ltd.
Lave, J. (1988) Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Photo by Cobalt123


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

Parabolic learning

Reflection and Amplification

Now that I have some time, I can sit down and reflect on an extraordinary two hour session with my BA Education Studies students this morning. They are only a small group of a dozen students, but over the last few months, my elearning module group has created a very large amount of content, including blogs, wiki pages and videos. The group wiki is here if anyone wishes to view some of their content. We have previously explored a number of learning theories, new learning technologies, concepts around crowdsourcing, wisdom of crowds, folksonomies and user generated content, Web 2.0, mobile learning and a whole host of other themes during the course.

Today was different, because normally I prepare thoroughly for the sessions. Today, I took the risk of going  into the room with just a germ of an idea to see how it would develop. That germ of an idea evolved over the course of the two hour session into something beyond anything I could ever have planned. It proves to me that sometimes spontaneity can pay dividends. The incorporation of a number of social media tools into the mix proved to be an amazing platform from which the students and I could reflect on the process of learning, and amplify our ideas to each other and the world.

I started the session with the aim of encouraging the group to learn deeply and critically about a particular topic - MOOCs (Massively Open Online Courses). I asked them to prepare for a debate next week, and put up the slide: 'This house believes that MOOCs will signal the demise of campus based higher education'.  I then divided the students randomly into two teams, one arguing for the motion, and the other arguing against. I asked the members of the two teams to research their arguments, with supporting evidence, and blog their ideas in preparation for next week's debate.

As a doorknob strategy, I asked two students to act as content curators. Their task would be to create a new wiki page, and begin to populate it with resources related to MOOCs. This would act as baseline reference materials for the two sides to incorporate into their arguments, but it would also mean that the two students would need to investigate both sides of the argument and post content related to the discourse around MOOCs.

I then tweeted (and encouraged the students to do the same) a few messages to the online educator community to ask them their views on the question of whether MOOCs would eventually replace traditional forms of education. This kind of crowdsourcing activity is always a risk and quite unpredictable, because you never know who will respond (if anyone) or what they will say. I added the hashtag #moocplym for good measure so we could track the conversation across the community. Next, I projected Twitterfall and VisibleTweets live backchannel feeds of responses on the large screen at the front of the classroom. Another task then came the way of the curator team. Their next challenge was to create an archive of all the tweets, blogs, and other content related to the hashtag #moocplym and maintain a chronological record throughout the week using Storify or some similar curation tool.

Over the coming week, the two teams (with the curation team in attendance) will therefore explore the history, culture, technology and pedagogy of MOOCs, a topic they are not particularly familiar with. They will critically analyse the discourse surrounding MOOCs, create and share content on their learning, and reflect on it. Their ideas, and their associated content will be presented and amplified through the social media channels, and the ultimate act will be the debate, followed by a discussion of the entire process from start to finish. There will be a lot to talk about if it all goes according to schedule. Oh, and why did I title this post parabolic learning? Because a parabolic reflector collects energy, focuses and transforms it, and then reflects it back with greater intensity. That's exactly what I want my students to do.

First image source
Second image by Steve Wheeler


Parabolic learning: reflection and amplification by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Making a difference

Many times I've heard it said that there is no evidence that technology improves learning. This is a vacuous claim, based on ignorance of the research literature, and possibly borne out of a fear or dislike of technology in general. My usual retort to such a claim is that children with special educational needs are a classic example of technology improving learning. For children with special needs, especially those with physical disabilities such as deafness or vision impairment, technology not only improves learning, it actually enables learning. Without adaptive technology, many disabled children could not access certain types of education. But there is a mass of evidence to show that technology is not only making the difference for all learners, it is actually creating new and previously unattainable opportunities for learning. Technology does make a difference.

A recent research study at the Durham University in the North East of England suggests that multi-touch, multi-user surfaces can improve the learning of mathematics. 400 children were involved in the study, which demonstrated that 'smart tables' enabled better collaboration and problem solving during maths lessons. Class teachers receive a live feed of output from the children's interactions on the surface, and can intervene when necessary. Research has shown that the touch surfaces enable children to discover a range of alternative solutions to maths problems, simply through interacting with each other in new ways.

Image source


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

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.

Touch and go

Since the introduction of the iPad and the subsequent parade of similar touch screen tablets, there has been much speculation about exactly what impact the devices might have on learning and teaching. A lot has been written about the potential of the devices, and much has been purely anecdotal. Clearly tablets are easy to use and have potential to revolutionise the way people access information. But what about formal education? I have contributed to the dialogue on this blog and there is much to discuss in relation to pedagogy, teacher roles, assessment and curriculum issues. There are also huge potential benefits in untethering learning - allowing students to roam while using the devices as mobile learning platforms. Recently a book was published with the title iPads in Schools, and several conference papers and articles are emerging which debate the place of touch tablets in formal education. Will they be a welcome addition to formal learning, or will they be a distraction? The intuitive design of touch screen tablets and their usability serve to fuel the hyperbole. But what impact are iPads really having on learning in formal education?

Until very recently, little empirical evidence had emerged to demonstrate clear learning benefits from tablets. The publication by NAACE (authored by Jan Webb) will add to our knowledge. Entitled 'The iPad as a Tool for Education' the report is one of the most comprehensive yet on the impact of tablets in schools. It is a case study conducted at Longfield Academy in Kent, one of the first schools in the UK to adopt a school wide roll out of iPads to all of its students. Results of the study were mainly positive, showing that iPads were instrumental in encouraging better collaboration and increasing the motivation for learning. The tablets were used to develop beyond school activities and for supporting homework, and the quality of student work and learning outcomes has improved. This will be the first of a range of studies that will emerge in the next year or two, as more school adopt one iPad per child strategies, and time is taken to realise tangible and measurable outcomes from embedding the tools into daily learning and teaching.

Image by Fotopedia


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

Learner analytics

As was identified in the 2011 NMC Horizon Report ( I served on the advisory board of the UK JISC version), it seems that learner analytics is going to be a big thing for education over the next four to five years. Expect to see it emerging into mainstream practice in a number of versions, specifically aligned to the personalised learning agenda. From the report comes an explanation of learner analytics:

Learner analytics loosely joins a variety of data gathering tools and analytic techniques to study student engagement, performance, and progress in practice, with the goal of what is learned to revise curricula, assessment and teaching in real time. Building on the kinds of information generated by Google Analytics and other similar tools, learner analytics aims to mobilize the power of data-mining tools in the service of learning, and embracing the complexity, diversity and abundance of information that dynamic learning environments can generate.

Below is a very useful infographic developed by the Australian Open Colleges organisation. I think it explains just about everything you will need to know about learning analytics:

Image source 

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

Teacher beliefs

How can we promote successful change in education? Schools are notoriously conservative institutions, so it is often difficult to introduce new ideas. Much of the resistance to change comes from teachers who 'have always done it this way' and who have the mentality that 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. Teacher beliefs about pedagogy are central to the successful integration of new technologies into schools. The extent to which they see technology skills as relevant and valuable directly relates to the extent to which these skills are practised and applied in their work. If teachers believe that technology adds no value to their teaching, they will simply not use it. New technology really has to be shown to be relevant and useful. The technology in any given school can be as high quality, shiny and compatible as you like. Technical support can be second to none, and all the support in the world on offer, but if the teacher is not convinced of its usefulness, forget it.

A long history of psychological research supports the argument that an individual is more likely to perform a behaviour when there is a high probability of a positive outcomes. See for example the work of Ajzen and Madden (1986) or Doll and Ajzen (1992). Teachers will only adopt new technology if they can see the benefits and are convinced something can be improved or enriched.

Perhaps even more important is the issue of professional practice. If teachers see no need to question or challenge their own practices, another barrier to the adoption of change arises. Reflection on practice is therefore a vital component in change management.

Put the political issues (such as regulation of activities and bans on the use of certain technology in schools) to one side for a moment. Do the same with the technical issues such as lack of bandwidth or hardware, or human issues such as lack of knowledge or skill. These have an impact on the success of technology integration in schools, but by far the biggest barrier to change lies inside the head the teacher.

More on change management in schools next time.

References
Ajzen, I. and Madden, T. (1986) Prediction of goal-directed behaviour: Attitudes, intentions and perceived behavioural control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453-474.
Doll, J. and Azjen I. (1992) Accessibility and stability of predictors in the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Behaviour, 63 (5), 754-765.

Photo by Steve Wheeler


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

The changing Web

This is number 4 in the series of blog posts entitled 'Shaping Education for the Future.' Yesterday's post can be found at this link.

The web is constantly changing. Social media - often referred to as Web 2.0, or the participatory Web - is shaping up to be one of the most important tool sets available to support the promotion of change in education. Almost everyone, it seems, is using some element of social media in the planning, development, delivery, management or evaluation of teaching and learning. One of the greatest changes (and challenges) for education over the last few years has been the proliferation of user generated content. My own students create a lot of their own content during their study, usually in the form of podcasts, videos, wiki and blog content, and are encouraged to share these publicly online to gain additional feedback. Doing this, they tend to engage more deeply with learning, and find themselves collaborating more and learning from each other, as a result of using Web 2.0 tools. Essentially, Web 2.0 enables them to take more responsibility for their own learning. They like to share their ideas, and they enjoy playing their part in the production of knowledge. Learning is changing, and their experience is being shaped by the participatory Web. The Web is constantly changing, but it is also a change agent.

We need to acknowledge that 'Web 2.0' remains a contested label for new and emergent properties that are found on the Web. It is a complex network of dynamic resources that we all acknowledge is constantly changing to adapt to the growing demand for entertainment, communication and access to knowledge. Debate focuses on whether the emerging social applications constitute a sea change or revolution in the Web (cf. Van Dijk, 2002) or simply another phase in its relentless progress. Personally, I find myself in agreement with Brian Winston (2003) who views the Web as a facet of gradual evolution rather than symptoms of sudden revolution. Essentially, the Web has become more social. As with most other technology innovations, Web 2.0 applications have grown out of the need for people to connect together, share experiences and knowledge, enhance their experiences and open up new possibilities in learning. Social software is software that enables people to both read from, and write onto web spaces. It truly is the ‘architecture of participation’ (Barsky and Purdon, 2006) and demands active engagement as a natural part of its character (Kamel Boulos and Wheeler, 2007).

Web 2.0 tools include popular applications such as blogs, wikis and podcasting; social networking sites such as FaceBook and LinkedIn; photo and videosharing services such as Flickr and YouTube; familiar utilities such as RSS feeds, social tagging (e.g. Delicious, Diigo), microblogs such as Twitter, mashups (e.g. geotagging). Web 2.0 has spawned concepts such as folksonomy, ‘Darwikianism’ and the ‘wisdom of the crowds’ (Kamel Boulos et al, 2006). Also, we need to pay attention to the growing power, ubiquity and utility of the mobile phone and the central role it is already playing in enabling ‘anytime anyplace’ learning for students.

More is becoming known about the effects the changing Web is exerting upon teaching and learning. We know of some of the benefits and the limitations it brings to education and training. But there are still many questions to be answered. How for example, does this architecture of participation help to scaffold remote learners and how can it promote quality learning outcomes? What is the extent of the capability of social software to encourage a culture of sharing and collaboration? How much will Web 2.0 applications help to shape the education provision of the future? What roles will online games and mobile, personal technologies play in developing the skills young people need to study independently? These are questions we are beginning to address in some of our current research. More on this in future posts on this blog.

References
Barsky, E. and Purdon, M. (2006) Introducing Web 2.0: Social networking and social bookmarking for health librarians. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 27, 65-67.
Kamel Boulos, M. N., Maramba, I. and Wheeler, S. (2006) Wikis, blogs and podcasts: a new generation of Web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education. BMC Medical Education, 6, 41. Retrieved 14 April, 2008 from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/6/41
Kamel Boulos, M. N. and Wheeler, S (2007) The emerging Web 2.0 social software: An enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and healthcare education. Health Informatics and Libraries Journal, 24(1), 2-23.
Van Dijk, J. (2002) The Network Society. London: Sage.
Winston, B. (2003) Media Technology and Society: A History: From the Telegraph to the Internet. London: Routledge.

Image source


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

A tale of two keynotes

This is the second in a series of blog posts entitled 'Shaping Education for the Future' Yesterday's post can be found on this link.

‘May you live in interesting times’ (Old Chinese curse)

We live in tumultuous times where change is constant and disruptive and where technologies are increasingly pervasive throughout society. Such change and disruption has been in the background of my thinking about learning technology for the past decade. In May 2000, I was invited to present two keynote speeches about the role technology would play in the future of higher education.

The first keynote was presented to the European Universities Continuing Education Network (EUCEN) at the University of Bergen, Norway and was entitled ‘The Traditional University is Dead – Long live the Distributed University!’ (Wheeler, 2000a). In my speech I outlined the economic and organisational problems faced by universities in a time of radical technological change and economic stringency in which traditional catchment areas and boundaries were being eroded. I argued that in order to survive the economic and societal challenges, universities would need to revise their approaches to education provision. I urged universities to develop new strategies that were based upon digital technologies to widen access, increase quality of provision and generally subscribe to the idea that students need no longer attend traditional lectures to achieve quality learning outcomes (Wheeler, 2004). I also pointed out the need for universities to create their own niche markets of unique or signature courses, and that universities would need to co-operate together in order to survive the economic turmoil and to make sense of the strictures and limitations that would be imposed due to governmental pressures.

My main recommendation however, was one grounded in the technology mediated learning approach. I argued that due to advances in information and communication technologies (ICTs) that traditional student catchment areas would begin to disappear or become less obvious (the death of distance) and recommended that universities turn their attention to blended and distance methods to broaden and extend their reach (the distributed model). I advised my audience that a number of new technologies were becoming increasingly available, easier to use and more economically viable to purchase into. I pointed out that one of the key technologies for the future would be the World Wide Web (I was of course unaware at the time just how vital it would become) and that managed (virtual) learning environments would become a useful means of organising and supporting online learning for large groups of distributed learners (again, I have revised my opinions a little on this). I took a risk and argued that universities that could not or would not rise to these challenges would either cease to exist, or become subsumed into larger universities who could respond to the challenge. In this speech I was deliberately provocative, and was rewarded by a passionate response from the delegates. Many were convinced that I was correct, whilst many more were equally convinced that I was wrong. It prompted much debate and led to a number of publications which presented my thinking to a wider audience (Wheeler, 2000b; 2001).

Later that same month, I presented a second keynote speech at a Teachers’ Conference held at the University of Western Bohemia, Plzen, in the Czech Republic. In that presentation I focused on the role of the teacher and how it was changing as a result of technological drivers, such as the introduction of new ICTs as well as political, societal and organisational demands (Wheeler, 2000a; 2000b). I drew upon my experience working in British and American schools to describe some of the new technologies and media methods that were emerging, and outlined their applications in teaching and learning. I argued that new information and communication technologies offered teachers an unprecedented chance to enhance and extend their practice. I went on to suggest that teachers needed to modify their classroom management, curriculum design, resources development, assessment and evaluation methods and communication techniques, if they were to remain effective and responsive practitioners. Again, this was a somewhat contentious speech, particularly as many teachers at the time were traditionally minded, conservative in their approach, pressed for time and notoriously resistant to change.

My first keynote dealt with the strategic changes institutions needed to adopt to survive in the new knowledge economy; my second keynote argued for changes at the level of the individual practitioner. In hindsight, neither argument was too wide of the mark. Across Europe and other western industrialised nations, most universities now have their own corporate e-learning strategies, and most manage their own virtual learning environments or VLEs (McConnell, 2006).

Furthermore, many teachers and lecturers are now adapting their everyday practice to incorporate digital technologies into the classroom and to extend learning beyond the traditional boundaries of the institute (Bach et al, 2007). Distance education is high on the agenda of most higher education institutes and a great deal of effort and time has been invested into staff development to ensure that teachers are up to date and aware of how to teach remotely using new technologies. Teachers have now started to harness the power of ICT and the web and personal networked computers within their working practice, for organisational, communicative and pedagogical purposes (John and Wheeler, 2008).

It is not only the role of the teacher that has changed. The embedding of digital technology into the fabric of everyday study has also changed the way students learn (Colllis and Moonen, 2002) and is more in keeping with what younger people tend to expect from higher education (Veen and Vrakking, 2006). Now students can assume more responsibility for their own learning and design their own study trajectories. They are able to learn on the move using mobile technologies, and are able to access a vast storehouse of knowledge through ubiquitous access to the World Wide Web. Communication is an easier prospect also with instant messaging and shared learning spaces becoming more common place. In many ways, and for most students, it would be hard to conceive of a way of learning and working that was devoid of the World Wide Web, e-mail or word processing.

Next time: Disruptive technologies in Higher Education

References
Bach, S., Haynes, P. and Lewis-Smith, J. (2007) Online Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Collis, B. and Moonen, J. (2002) Flexible Learning in a Digital World: Experiences and Expectations. London: Kogan Page.
John, P. D. and Wheeler, S. (2008) The Digital Classroom: Harnessing the Power of Technology for Learning and Teaching. London: Routledge.
McConnell, D. (2006) E-Learning Groups and Communities. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Veen, W. and Vrakking, B. (2006) Homo Zappiens: Growing Up in a Digital Age. London: Network Continuum.
Wheeler, S. (2000a) The Traditional University is Dead! Long Live the Distributed University! Keynote presentation for the European Universities Continuing Education Network (EUCEN) Annual Conference, University of Bergen, Norway. May 4-7.
Wheeler, S. (2000b) The Role of the Teacher in the use of ICT. Keynote presentation for the Czech Teachers’ Conference, University of Western Bohemia, Plzen, Czech Republic. May 20.
Wheeler, S. (2001) Information and Communication Technology and the Changing Role of the Teacher. Journal of Educational Media 26(1), 7-18.

Wheeler, S. (2004). Five Smooth Stones: Fighting for the Survival of Higher Education. Distance Learning 1(3), 11-17.


Photo taken during Zukunft Personal Conference, Cologne, Germany in 2011.


A tale of two keynotes by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Who will survive?

This is the first in a series of posts entitled 'Shaping Education for the Future'

The dynamics of education in the 21st Century are very different from those witnessed in previous years. In the last century, education (in all its forms) was based on the assumption that knowledge content was scarce, and that formal education (university, college, school) was the only place it could be accessed. Then along came the World Wide Web. Things changed, and they changed dramatically. Within a short space of time, user generated content in all its forms began to assume prominence. In the age of social media, content is no longer scarce.  It is abundant, and although questions still remain over the accuracy and provenance of some content, much is usable and useful for informal learning. Do you want to know how to make Baked Alaska? (with Gordon Ramsay as your personal tutor no less!) Need to know how to build a computer? Like to learn how to waltz, or play blues guitar? Interested in the link between quantum physics and consciousness? It's all there on YouTube, waiting for you to watch it. For free. Wikipedia, the online crowd-sourced encyclopaedia, hosts over 14 million articles on just about every subject under the sun. They are constantly being updated as events occur around the globe. Citizen journalism is now a regular feature in much of mainstream media news coverage. We could go on, but I think the point has been made. Content is now abundant, accessible, and can be created as it is required. Content isn't king anymore. Context is.

What will the future hold for education? The education systems of the previous century are outmoded, based on factory models of mass instruction that was fit for the period. There is a new world of work now. It demands change from education. Many universities and colleges are traditional and conservative, but change is constant and exponential. Institutions will need to respond to these changes if they wish to survive. Fortunately, new models of education are now emerging, many of which avoid content and instruction, and instead focus on expertise, tutoring, mentoring, guidance and specialism. Student centred approaches focus on personalised learning, and exploit the potential of personal technologies that enable any time, anywhere learning. This is quite a departure for education. It is a seismic shift that will have profound implications for formal education in the coming years. We can expect to see many institutions scrabbling to change their business models over the next decade as they compete for ever shrinking markets, and more demanding students. The more conservative institutions, placing their trust in their tradition and past reputation will stay as they are, resisting change. Many of these will die. In the worst case scenario, we can also expect to see many institutions going under, because they will not be able to respond to the new demands, or compete in the new market. At best, some institutions might expect is to be subsumed into more successful institutions.

The successful institutions will be those that see the gaps and exploit them; they will be leaner, more efficient organisations that understand why knowledge is no longer a commodity. They will be institutions that can clearly discern the connections between learning and business, between technology and pedagogy, between individuals and society. The successful, surviving educational organisations will be those who have the ability to adapt, respond quickly to global trends. They will be the universities and colleges that are agile enough to change when needed and stand their ground when required. Will we see the death of the educational institution? No, we will not. There will always be a need for sound, organised education. What is in question is the nature of that organisation. The factory model of educational provision is no longer relevant, and no longer desirable. Universities and colleges that persist in this mode can expect hard times. What we will see is a drastic pruning of the dead wood, to make way for new shoots of growth to emerge.

Next time: How institutions can respond to the challenges


Who will survive? by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Learning in a Digital Age: The myth and the reality

I recently gave a keynote at the eLearning 2.0 conference held at Brunel University, in West London. The presentation was a reworked version of one I gave earlier in the year in Tallinn, Estonia. In Learning in a Digital Age: The Myth and the Reality, I present a number of widespread beliefs about elearning, and challenge the provenance, reasoning and application of these theories. Learning styles, digital natives and immigrants theory, and the arguments that you cannot personalise learning in large organisations; or that SMS txting is dumbing down language; are all scrutinised and challenged. Brunel University did an excellent job of recording my voice and the slides, and synchonising them, probably using Camtasia or a similar tool. Here it is in full, for those who want to follow the arguments and discussion that ensued.



Learning in a Digital Age: The myth and the reality by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

The industrialisation of learning

The industrial model of education that has such a strong grip on schools has been critiqued by a number of high profile commentators, from Ivan Illich (1970) and Paulo Freire (1970) through to contemporary commentators such as Stephen Heppell and Sir Ken Robinson. Indeed, Robinson's 2006 TED talk video goes as far as to say that current schooling is stifling innovation and creativity, and squandering talent. The video has been viewed over 11 million times, which shows that the message clearly resonates. Robinson argues that children are educated out of creativity. He warns that if we are not prepared to take risks and get it wrong occasionally, we will never come up with anything original. The education system, he complains, is predicated on academic ability to the detriment of art and creativity. Watch this entertaining and challenging video to grasp the full value and impact of Sir Ken's message.

Alvin Toffler (1980) describes a number of features that maintain the status quo in society, including synchronisation of behaviour, standardisation of content and maximisation of resources. Robinson talks of 'batch processing by age', another erroneous strategy schools still employ for convenience rather than for the wellbeing of individual children. It is a mass production of education, or as Noah Kennedy once put it 'The industrialisation of intelligence.' A closer look at school systems reveals that these features remain central to the management of education. These were ideal features to prepare children for a future of work in industrial settings. But time has moved on and schools have not. We now work in fluid situations were more often than not, there is no 'job for life' and portfolio careers are dominant.  

The future of work is more uncertain now than it has ever been. We are preparing children for a world that we cannot yet clearly describe. It makes sense for schools to reappraise their mode of operation and decide what to change to engage children with learning in new ways, to develop them into independent learners, agile thinkers, creative and innovative in all they do. Only then can we be assured that we have done our very best for them.

NB: In my next few posts, I'm going to critically explore several of the school strategies Toffler and Robinson have identified, and offer some alternative approaches to promote independent learning and creativity.

Image by Steve Wheeler

References

Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin.

Illich, I. (1970) Deschooling Society. London: Marion Boyars Publishers.

Kennedy, N. (1989) The Industrialisation of Intelligence. London: Unwin.

Robinson, K. (2006) Ken Robinson says schools kill creativity. TED Talk Video available online at http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html (Accessed 29 June 2012).

Toffler, A. (1980) The Third Wave. London: Pan Books.

The industrialisation of learning by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Stuck in the past?

What changes has technology made in schools? In 1970, sociologist Alvin Toffler predicted: 'Within thirty years, the educational systems of the United States, and several Western European countries as well, will have broken decisively with the mass production pedagogy of the past, and will have advanced into an era of educational diversity based on the liberating power of the new machines.' (Toffler, 1970, p 251) By new machines, Toffler was clearly referring to computers and their associated tool sets. By mass pedagogy, he referred to the factory production model of education that schools have been caught in for over a century. More than four decades after Toffler's book was published, there is conflicting evidence that technology has actually delivered any significant change to the pedagogy practiced in school classrooms. The answer to the question for many schools, is that technology brings very little change to the way teachers educate. The mass production pedagogy model stubbornly persists, and personalised learning seems far from the reach of many young people.

Technology (in the form of mobile telephones) has changed the way we communicate with each other, and social networking services such as Facebook have made similar advances in the way we relate to our friends and family. Broadcast media are ubiquitous, with television in every living room, on our hand held devices, even on large screens in the public areas of major cities around the world. Our leisure, economy and social lives have been transformed by the impact of the World Wide Web, and arguably, we are a lot better of because of it. In fact advances in interactive, personalised technologies are so prominent that hardly a day goes by without some new innovation being trumpeted by the media. So why has technology wrought so few changes in the school classroom? Why was Toffler's prediction so far off the mark, when many of his other, contemporary predictions were clearly realised?

One reason there has been little change in schools is that many continue to operate on a factory production system that belongs in last century's industrial age, and new technology is not permitted to disrupt it. Schools continue to jealously protect a conservatism that resides in few similarly large-scale institutions. Even when new technologies are introduced into classrooms, they are often used in a similar manner to the older technologies they replace. Disruption of old practices is unwelcome in school. A classic example of this is the Interactive Whiteboard (IWB). Over the last few years IWBs have been installed into many classrooms in the UK with little impact. Teachers continued to use IWBs as though they were standard dry-wipe or chalk boards - as presentational tools or slide projection screens. 

The pedagogical opportunities the new tools afforded (such as interactive touch surfaces on which children could experiment, create and manipulate images and text) were largely ignored because a) teachers were concerned about damage or b) disruption or c) lack of knowledge and fear of exposure to new ideas. Often the failure to adopt new practices arising from new technology provision can be blamed on a lack of good leadership. Sometimes it can be the result of lack of knowledge, but more often than not, teachers fail to develop new pedagogies due to a lack of time or resources to be able to do so. This is where good leadership intervention could benefit the entire school. One of the greatest barriers to innovative practice in schools arises from the ban many place on the use of mobile phones in their classrooms. Place this in the context of local education authorities concertedly blocking social media services due to 'safety' concerns, and there is little wonder that schools struggle to capitalise on the technological benefits being enjoyed by the rest of society. It is an abysmal situation.

And yet there are pockets of inspiration and innovation in the schools sectors. What kind of new pedagogies are emerging as a result of technology provision in classrooms? Firstly, we are seeing children being encouraged to improve their writing and reading through the use of social media such as blogs and wikis. They are being encouraged to communicate more effectively through podcasts, videos and on social networking sites. A great deal of creativity is being unleashed through the use of image sharing sites, touch screen tools and new dimensions to learning are being realised through game playing. Mobile learning takes the experience of discovery outside the classroom into the community the children will eventually work within. IWBs, when used effectively can enhance and enrich the entire learning encounter, with students as actively involved in knowledge production as their teachers. None of this has been achieved without some self-sacrifice by educators, some visionary leadership, and a large amount of disruption. If these three elements are present, innovative pedagogical practices will begin to spread, and we will see a realisation of Toffler's prediction. If not, we will be stuck with the mass production pedagogy of the past.

Reference
Toffler, A. (1970) Future Shock. London: Pan Books.

Image by David Wright

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

Bloom and bust

Bloom's Taxonomy has been hailed as a template for best practice in course design. It has been a part of the bedrock of teacher education courses for over half a century, and is a model just about every learning professional is aware of, and has used at some point in their teaching career. Bloom's Cognitive Taxonomy is probably the best known and most used, and is organised into six levels of learning rising from simple to complex. These are often represented as a pyramid with the most complex category at the apex. Benjamin Bloom and his colleagues identified three distinct domains of learning, namely the Cognitive (thinking - knowing, reasoning), Affective (feeling - emotions, attitudes) and Psychomotor (doing - physical skills, practice) domains. Both the Cognitive domain and Affective domain were published as edited volumes, in 1956 and 1964 respectively. In the past, the usefulness of the model was widely acknowledged, particularly in the construction of lesson plans.

Veronica Alexander talks about how the taxonomy has been successfully used as a template for learning programmes. She writes:

"A well-written educational objective (or learning objective) is a single, specific, measurable description of what the learner will be taught and is expected to master. The learner can only be measured if they can demonstrate a behavior that provides evidence of their knowledge or skill. One learning experience can be composed of one or more objectives. Objectives can also be nested where a Terminal Learning Objective (TLO) is a high-level summary of the demonstrable knowledge or skill and one or more Enabling Learning Objectives (ELO) are sub-skills which support each TLO. Bloom’s taxonomy provides a method for learning designers to plan, organize and scale the complexity of the content in a way that supports learner performance".

And yet Bloom's taxonomy raised some serious issues. How relevant is it in the digital age? Should we still be organising learning experiences as a gradient of 'terminal learning objectives' in an age where learning is changing, and where personal technologies and social media are increasingly significant? Learning is changing, because the boundaries between discrete learning activities are blurring. Assessment methods are changing too. Bloom's Cognitive taxonomy represents a very rigid method of control over learning behaviour, and offered structure for teachers in the last century. But just how desirable is it in today's classrooms? Exactly how much control do teachers need to exert over students' learning today? What about freedom to learn, and what about individual creativity? Where do they fit into the grand scheme of 21st Century learning? If you subscribe to the belief that students are blank slates (tabulas rasa) on which knowledge can be inscribed by experts, then Bloom's taxonomy is for you. If on the other hand, you believe that all learners have the ability to be creative, critical and independent, then you will start looking elsewhere for guidance on how to provide engaging learning experiences. Bloom and his colleagues identified three domains - knowledge, attitudes and skills - but omitted some important additional components - intuition and creativity. Was this because they are difficult to 'measure' objectively?

These are not the only problems. Criticism of Bloom's Cognitive taxonomy has been widespread, but at the outset, I want to argue that it is often a mistake to try to represent complex ideas in the form of simplistic diagrams. I'm not sure whether Bloom and his colleagues ever wished to see their work represented as a pyramid, but that's how it now appears in many popular interpretations, and it was originally presented as a progressive linear sequence. Portraying the 6 levels of attainment in this manner only serves to reinforce the prescriptive, sequential and reductionist nature of Bloom's Cognitive taxonomy. Secondly, there is doubt over the validity and reliability of Bloom's taxonomy (see for example Brenda Sugrue's critique). Way back in 1974, Ormell criticised Bloom for failing to acknowledge 'imaginative understanding' - essential creativity in learning.

Bloom's taxonomy has been criticised for its simplistic view of a very complex human activity. Post modernist criticism points to its neat and ordered classification of learning modes and argues that the human mind is far to complex to be represented in such a prescribed manner. Another post-modern critique is that many of the terms used in the taxonomy are artificially constructed as ideology to 'conceal the messy side of learning' (Spencer, 2008). Probably the most important criticism of Bloom though, and the most relevant in an age of social media, is that the taxonomy tends to focus on individual learning activities. Technology has changed that. Today social learning is increasingly prevalent. Collaboration, shared online spaces, discussion, co-construction of content and negotiation of meaning are all evident in the 21st Century classroom. Bloom's taxonomy has little to offer here, because it was devised in an era of instruction in which drill and practice were common and where behaviorism was the dominant ideology.

Ultimately, Bloom's Taxonomy was used as a tool to aid curriculum design. However, it is nonsense to expect teachers to continue to write verb laden 'instructional objectives' to describe behaviour for each and every one of the six cognitive levels that they are subsequently required to 'measure'. At best, applying the taxonomy to assessment reduces learning to a series of fairly meaningless behavioural links, and at worst, it does nothing to support or encourage the intuitive and creative instincts of every child in the class. Shelly Wright also expresses disquiet, suggesting that in the pyramid model, it appears that to reach a peak of creativity, learners need to traverse all the inferior stages of learning first. This is also clearly untrue in many real life experiences. Shelly suggests flipping, or inverting the pyramid so that creating (or making) becomes the first stage in the learning process. I'm not convinced that this significantly improves the taxonomy. It simply creates yet another linear, artificial representation of complex learning processes.

Tomorrow: Part 2: Bloom reheated

References
Bloom, B. S. and Krathwohl, D. R. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longmans.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S. and Masia, B. B. (1964) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York: David McKay Company.
Ormell, C. P. (1974) Bloom's Taxonomy and the Objectives of Education, Educational Research, 17, 1.
Spencer, J. T. (2008) Bloom's Taxonomy: Criticisms. Teacher Commons. Available online at: http://teachercommons.blogspot.co.uk/2008/04/bloom-taxonomy-criticisms.html (Accessed 22 June, 2012)

Bloom's Taxonomy image source


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