Play the ball, not the man

I read Wikipedia founder Larry Sanger's blog with interest this week. In response to my post Content as Curriculum? he had written a protracted and elaborate response. Although I was gratified that someone with such a standing in the academic community had taken the time to read my post and respond so comprehensively, I admit I was also a little disconcerted to find that not only had he misapprehended my original message, but had also apparently resorted to name-calling. Now, anyone who knows me reasonably well will understand what drives me to blog. It is to provoke discussion, to agitate, and to disrupt, with the long term goal to hopefully improve aspects of education and training. Sometimes I deliberately take a strong position to achieve this. Readers will disagree or agree with me - see for example this response from another blogger - and we all learn. I am open to criticism and my ideas, theories and contributions are there to be shot at, or built upon. But for Sanger to label me as an 'anti-intellectual' on the basis of the reading of one of my blog posts seemed somewhat reactionary. I'm not convinced there should be a place for this kind of tactic in reasonable discourse. Unfortunately, his stance serves to detract from the otherwise serious debate that I tried to instigate around the current state of curricula in schools. Before anyone else treats my ideas with similar disdain, let me clarify a few points about that blog post.

Firstly, let me deal with the misapprehension: Larry Sanger seems an intelligent, eloquent man, and if you can steer around his personal references, his response analyses my post almost line for line and he has produced some interesting commentary to counter my views. It is a useful contribution to the debate, and is exactly the kind of dialogue I wish to promote. It is the reason I continue to blog provocatively. I won't attempt to respond to him verse by verse as he has done, but I will make some key points. In my post I held that schools need reform, and at the heart of that reform should be an overhaul of the curriculum. For some time now, many highly respected commentators (see for example Stephen Heppell and Sir Ken Robinson) have argued that the majority of school experiences are still organised around old industrialised models. Many have called for a radical change in the way schooling is conducted to improve the chances of young people when they leave school. In my post I suggested that a possible way forward would require a reappraisal of the current curricula, with more emphasis on competencies and literacies. I wish to make something clear: My remark that some knowledge was susceptible to obsolescence was not a call for all knowledge to be removed from curricula - that would indeed be ridiculous. I am not attacking knowledge, as Sanger asserts. Rather, I am calling for schools to re-examine the content of curricula and to find ways to situate this knowledge within more open, relevant and dynamic learning contexts. I am also calling for more of an emphasis on the development of skills that will prepare children to cope better in uncertain futures. It was probably an error to use poor illustrations and analogies to underpin this call. Regardless of any argument thrown against it however, the call still stands, and I am not the first to make it. John Seely-Brown and Doug Thomas (2011) have argued that the majority of school experiences are mechanistic and need to be better contextualised. Regarding current school practices they state: 'The goal is to learn as much as you can, as fast as you can. In this teaching based approach, standardization is a reasonable way to do this, and testing is a reasonable way to measure the result. The processes that necessarily occur to reach the goal therefore, are considered of little consequence in and of themselves. They are valued only for the results they provide'. (p 35). Clearly, this situation is far from ideal. Teachers are pressurised to deliver an over-stuffed, content-laden curriculum in the limited time available, which leaves little time for experimentation and play, conversation or self discovery.

I also called for an end to the compartmentalisation of subjects within the curriculum. Studying a subject in isolation from other subjects suggests to children that there are no connections, as surely as using computers only in an ICT suite suggests that there are only some conditions within which the use of computers can be conducted. Again, context is required, and as Gerver argues: 'learning should be an expansive, personal and unpredictive journey' (p 62). Yet how can we achieve this, he asks, when school becomes an increasingly defined, predictable series of divorced lessons. How can we maintain the interests of children when they know exactly what is coming next - dull routine? Here lies the argument that context is now king, and content has become a tyrant.

But let's go back to the personal comments. At the heart of Sanger's argument is a concerted attempt to establish that I am an anti-intellectual. He does this on the basis of a belief that I am calling for an end to knowledge. But his belief is misfounded, and I have attempted to offer clarification in my recent blog post Conversation as Curriculum. He admits in a previous comment that he was confrontational and pointed. It seems a contradiction that he can view me as a 'serious theorist' and then spend the majority of his post trying to convince his readers that I am 'anti-intellectual'. Surely the two cannot be compatible? His descent into hectoring tones of name-calling detract significantly from his otherwise reasonable arguments. Larry Sanger and I have never met, so we don't know each other. How then is he able make such sweeping judgements about me on the basis of the reading of one of my posts? The answer is, he can't, and I would not presume to reciprocate. To label me as 'anti-intellectual' suggests that he has already made his mind up, and no amount of argument will change that.

I am sure that my academic achievements come nowhere near to Larry Sanger's. My list of peer reviewed publications and the frequency of my invited speeches around the world will not compare with his. Considering my track record, however, I feel that I deserve a little better than to be ridiculed as 'anti-intellectual', and it is ironic that Larry Sanger's act of ridiculing could itself be construed as anti-intellectualism. If by anti-intellectual he meant that I oppose the ivory tower mentality endemic within academia, then I would gladly accept the title, and he might also consider inserting 'dangerous' as a prefix. Sadly, this is not what Sanger intends. Instead, the title is meant to suggest that I am against knowledge, and that therefore my arguments must be dismissed because they are merely 'popularist'. Well, he is entitled to his opinions. Just don't be fooled by the rhetoric - examine the evidence yourself and then make your own mind up: Do current school curricula make sense, or should they be changed? Whatever the outcome of this debate, you can name me, but you'll never tame me. I will continue to provoke, cajole and disrupt via this blog, and I welcome all conversations from all comers. Just make sure you play the ball, not the man.

References 

Gerver, R. (2010) Creating tomorrow's schools today: Education - our children - their futures. London: Continuum.
Seely-Brown, J. and Thomas, D. (2011) A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. Create Space.

Image by John Garghan


Play the ball, not the man by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Conversation as curriculum

In my last blog post Content as curriculum? I lamented the current state of formal education and pointed to linear, content laden and outmoded curricula as a contributing factor. The post provoked a number of comments, some supportive, some antagonistic to my position, and one who perhaps played the man rather than the ball. Both sides fought their corners well, each arguing from a stance on the fundamental nature of teaching and learning, and the specific role that school plays in education. Some comments pointed out that resources, teacher styles, assessment methods and time were important factors in determining the relevance and efficacy of curricula in schools. But (and here I will continue to be provocative) I feel that some are missing the point completely. The point I am making is that content based delivery of the curriculum, and its traditional compartmentalisation of subjects constrain the understanding of students, and fail to prepare them for a dynamic world of work and life that is constantly changing. Today we have a vast array of technology at our fingertips, and - although I admit this is seldom enough to make informed decisions and knowledgeable actions on its own - combined with the appropriate skills and literacies, individuals will have the ability to apply creative solutions to problems they may encounter on a daily basis. My approach to any reformation of school curriculum would be to bias it toward procedural (knowing how) knowledge that can be applied in pragmatic ways to constantly changing conditions.

In his 1996 book Curriculum as Conversation, Arthur Applebee argued that much of the school curriculum of the time was based upon 'false premises and reflect a fundamental misconception of the nature of knowing. They strip knowledge of the contexts that give it meaning and vitality, and lead to an education that stresses knowledge-out-of-context rather than knowledge-in-action. In such a system students are taught about the traditions of the past, and not how to enter into and participate in those of the present and the future.' (p. 3) It is clear that in the 15 years since the book was published, little has changed. I have asked this question before, but I will ask it again. Are we preparing students for the past, or for the future?

In order to prepare students for the future, we need to understand that contexts are changing rapidly but much curriculum content does not, and can thus quickly become obsolete. We can therefore no longer afford to rely solely on content, and need to present more situated learning opportunities. Situated approaches to learning involve an emphasis on context, not just on content, and the best way to experience appropriate contexts is to do it for real. Carl Young (2004) relates the story of a language teacher who used pure conversation as the basis for all her teaching. Although this sounds like a no-brainer - an obvious method for language, which has conversation at its heart - it is actually quite profound. I believe similar dialogic approaches can and should be applied to the teaching of all subjects across the curriculum. My former colleague Alan Bleakley (2009) takes this a step further, arguing that much of education is sadly still based on power differentials between teacher and student, and calls for a more horizontal, democratised form of education where students have equal say in the process. Bleakley echoes the earlier work of Paulo Freire (1970) who pointed out that: "Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students." Bleakley goes on to elaborate that 'democracy in education requires interplay between the individual and the collective through authentic dialogue - as the reconstructionists suggest, constructing curriculum as an extended and complicated conversation.' (p. 300). To achieve this requires teachers to assume a role as learners, while students are allowed to become teachers, to facilitate the free and open dialogue that will constitute conversation as curriculum. Freire again: "Authentic thinking, thinking that is concerned about reality, does not take place in ivory tower isolation, but only in communication. If it is true that thought has meaning only when generated by action upon the world, the subordination of students to teachers becomes impossible."

It seems clear to me that to encourage open and frank dialogue in a formal learning environment, the power differential between teacher and student must be removed. When teachers wish to promote democratic learning, students are given license to challenge and encouraged to discuss, debate, argue. Passive consumption of delivered knowledge is replaced by full engagement with the subject matter through conversation. The conversation around the topic becomes the new curriculum, enabling each student to act as an open minded, independent thinker who can defend his or her position without resorting to dogmatic assertions based on partial understanding or incomplete knowledge. The best teachers encourage all students to participate and value all contributions, incorporating as many as possible into an extended conversation around the topic.

In the digital age, conversation as curriculum can be extended beyond the classroom through the use of social media and other communication technologies. Conversation for learning across a number of platforms suggests that two or more discussions can occur simultaneously. It may be impossible to change the curriculum we are tasked to deliver. However, teachers who appreciate the merits of conversation in a truly Socratic mode will redesign lessons to incorporate learning activities to reflect it.

References

Applebee, A. N. (1996) Curriculum as conversation: Transforming traditions of teaching and learning. London: University of Chicago Press.
Bleakley, A. (2009) Editorial: Curriculum as conversation. Advances in Health Science Education, 14 (3), 297-301.
Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed London: Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative
Young, C. A. (2004) Conversation as curriculum: Learning to teach English in rural America. The English Journal, 93 (6), 82.

Image by Simon Phipps


Content as curriculum? by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Content as curriculum?

I think it's about time we reconsidered the way curricula in schools are presented. The tired, just in case model of curriculum just doesn't make sense anymore. Content is still very much king in schools, because 'content as curriculum' is easy and cost effective to deliver, and that is what most governments require and impose. But most teachers will tell you it's not the best approach. When I went to school I was required to attend classes in mathematics, English language and literature, science (physics, biology, chemistry), history, geography, music, art, Religious Education, craft and design, home economics, German and French - all just in case I might need them later in life. With the exception of a few subjects, my schooling didn't make that much sense to me.

Occasionally I hear someone saying "I'm glad I took Latin at school", and then arguing that it helped them to discover the name of a fish they caught whilst out angling on holiday. Well, knowing that thalassoma bifasciatum is a blue-headed wrasse may be wonderful for one's self esteem. It may impress your friends during a pub quiz, but it won't get you a job.... and was it really worth all those hours learning how to conjugate amo, amas, amat simply to be able to one day identify a strange fish, when all you need to do in the digital mobile age is Google it?

The question is, how much do children now need to learn in school that is knowledge based? Do children really need to know what a phrasal verb is, or that William Shakespeare died in 1616 when what they really need to be able to do is write a coherent and convincing job application or construct a relevant CV? We call this type of learning declarative knowledge, because it is 'knowing that' - in other words, the learning of facts. Yet, in a post-modernist world where all knowledge has become increasingly mutable and open to challenge, facts go quickly out of date. I was taught in school that there are nine planets orbiting the sun. Today it appears that Pluto is no longer a planet (but for me he will always be a cartoon dog). Is it Myanmar or Burma? I was told by my geography teacher it was Burma. Then she was right, now she is wrong. Just when did Mao Tse-tung change his name to Mao Zedong? And is the atom still the smallest object known to humankind? No. Now we have something called quantum foam. Apparently it's great for holding the universe together but pretty useless in a wet shave. You see, facts are changing all the time, and very little appears to remain concrete. So why are teachers wasting their own time, and that of the kids, teaching them facts which in a few years time may be utterly out of date? Should we not instead be maximising school contact time by teaching skills, competencies, literacies? After all, it is the ability to work in a team, problem solve on the fly, and apply creative solutions that will be the common currency in the world of future work. Being able to think critically and create a professional network will be the core competencies of the 21st Century knowledge worker. Knowing how - or procedural knowledge - will be a greater asset for most young people. You see, the world of work is in constant change, and that change is accelerating.

My 16 year old son has just embarked on training to become a games designer. If, when I was his age I had told my careers teacher that I wanted to be a games designer, he would have asked me whether I wanted to make cricket bats or footballs. Jobs are appearing that didn't exist even a year or two ago. Other jobs that people expected to be in for life are disappearing or gone forever. Ask the gas mantel fitters or VHS repair technicians. Ask the tin miners, the lamplighters or the typewriter repair people. Er, sorry you can't ask them. They don't exist anymore.

Why do some teachers still provide children with answers when all the answers are out there on the Web? Contemporary pedagogy is only effective if there is a clear understanding of the power and efficacy of the tools that are available. Shakespeare may well have died in 1616, but surely anyone can look this up on Wikipedia if and when they need to find out for themselves? Inquiry based learning is gradually taking hold in schools, but not quickly enough. Give the kids questions from which more questions will arise. Send them out confused and wanting more. Get them using the digital tools they are familiar with to go find the knowledge they are unfamiliar with. After all, these are the tools they carry around with them all the time, and these are the tools they will be using when they enter the world of work. And these are the tools that will mould them into independent learners in preparation for challenging times ahead.

We need to move with the times, and many schools are still lagging woefully behind the current needs of society. Why do we compartmentalise our subjects in silos? When will we begin to realise that all subjects have overlaps and commonalities, and children need to understand these overlaps to obtain a clear and full picture of their world. Without holistic forms of education, no-one is going to make the link between science and maths, or understand how art or music have influenced history. Some schools such as Albany Senior High School in Auckland are already breaking down the silos and supporting learning spaces where students can switch quickly between 'subjects' across the curriculum. Other schools are beginning to realise that ICT is not a subject and shouldn't be taught, but is best placed as embedded across the entire curriculum.

It's about time we all woke up and realised that the world around us is changing, and schools need to change too. After all, the school still remains the first and most important place to train and prepare young people for work. If we don't get it right in school, we are storing up huge problems for the future. Education is not life and death. It's much more important than that.

Next time: Conversation as curriculum


Content as curriculum? by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Aotearoa ... kei te aroha au ki a koe

New Zealand is simply amazing. What can I say about the many sights I have seen, people I have met and things I have experienced? Time and space are not enough, but I will try: Perhaps the crowning highlight of my three week tour was the traditional Maori Powhiri and honour that was bestowed upon me during the ICELF Conference in Auckland. I was invited to present my keynote speech in the Maori sacred meeting house - the marae. This was a barefoot keynote, because no-one should enter the marae with their shoes on. Afterwards I was presented with a greenstone gem with inlaid paua shell as a symbol of everlasting friendship with the people of New Zealand. I will treasure it always. Many photographs of the conference can be found here on the ICELF website.

The sights of New Zealand are absolutely stunning. The lakes and hillsides and the majestic mountains and volcanic outcrops are awe inspiring, as are the natural phenomena of this great island. The geothermal activity down in Rotorua can be spectacular, provided you don't mind the constant smell of sulphur in the air. Hamilton, Palmerston North and Wellington all have great places to visit. In Hamilton, the statue of Richard O'Brien as Riff-Raff is bizarre, and is streamed live on the internet through a web cam, 24/7. Palmerston North's Massey University campus is one of the most serene, arboreal places I have had the pleasure to visit. Wellington's Te Papa museum on the beautiful waterfront is a place to lose yourself for many hours, as you explore and discover the history and culture of this great country. The Lord of the Rings tours (there are several) are a must for all Tolkien fans. The guides are knowledgeable with inside gossip from the film industry (Wellywood) and the visits to iconic location shoots are exciting for film fans. A visit to the Weta Cave in Miramar is also good value. Meeting an ex Plymouth University graduate in a shop across the road from where I'm staying was strange. Bumping into Dermot Donnelly on the Lord of the Rings Movie tour bus in Wellington and finding out that we had similar research interests in online learning and wikis for education was even stranger.

I discovered that innovation is alive and well in some very rich seams of education in New Zealand. My visit to Albany Senior High School impressed me for its bold break away from the tired old silo mentality of traditional schooling. In their fabulous learning spaces they exclusively use open source software and encourage BYOD as well as integrated curriculum practices. AUT's soon to be constructed learning precinct also breaks the mould of traditional university campuses, and by the look of it as I drove past today, it is on target for completion next year. The smart shed project I visited at Unitec will provide richer situated learning experiences for construction students and will no doubt be copied by other training colleges in the future.

But it is the people of New Zealand who have left the most indellible impression on me. Kiwis are some of the most friendly, helpful and accommodating people in the world. Perhaps it is their relative isolation from the rest of the world that makes them so affable. Perhaps their location in the South Pacific and its long tradition of hospitality makes them so welcoming. It was great to catch up with Jedd Bartlett and Derek Wenmoth (Core Education) again, and to meet up once more with old friends including Nigel Robertson (Waikato University), Niki Davis (Canterbury University), Thom Cochrane (AUT) and Michael Fawcett and to meet in real life some new (but strangely familiar) Twitter friends such as Vasi Doncheva, Jonathon Hagger and Karen Melhuish. My grateful thanks go to all those who have organised my travel and accommodation here this year, and especially to Mark Brown (Massey University), Linda Keesing-Styles (Unitec), Mandy Williams (Waiariki Institute), Noeline Wright (Waikato), Mark Osborne (Albany Senior High School) and their colleagues for making my stay here so delightful.  And finally, my special thanks to my cousins Linda and Alistair Robinson (AUT), for welcoming me into their home in Auckland during my stay here. To all of you I say - Kei te aroha au ki a koe!


Image source and ICELF


Aotearoa ... kei te aroha au ki a koe by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Across the Twitterverse

It's that time of the year when the edublog community honours its members with awards. The 2011 Edublog Awards have come around again with frightening speed, and once again this year I am both honoured and humbled to have been nominated in two categories - best individual blog and best individual tweeter (for my @timbuckteeth account). I'm very much aware that there are many, many active and creative edubloggers out there who could and should have been nominated and included in the list, but even without them, the list is still quite impressive. As I have previously said during past Edublog Awards, it really doesn't matter that much who wins in each of the categories, the real spirit of the Edublog Awards is about honouring those who have served another year by writing, blogging, tweeting and otherwise freely sharing their ideas and wisdom with their community through social media. I learn so much each year from these people, and my own professional and personal worlds would be poorer without my daily dose of news, views and commentaries throughout the Edublogsphere and across the Twitterverse. 


So congratulations to all those who made it to the final cut, and please - everyone, show your appreciation for your colleagues by voting for your favourites. And one final thing - you are allowed to vote in as many categories as you like, each and every day, right up to the deadline on December 13th.

Image courtesy of Edublog Awards


Across the Twitterverse by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

A head teacher writes...

We have had pencils in our school now for some time, and we were one of the first to adopt them, but it has been an uphill struggle. There aren't enough to go around, and often several of the children have to crowd around to use the pencils at the same time. But we are better off than many schools. We have a well equipped pencil suite where the chained desktop pencils are used in special sessions, and often, as a reward for good behaviour children are allowed to come into the suite (under teacher supervision of course) to use the pencils to draw fun things.

Pencils were resisted by some of the teachers at first, because they complained they would have to change their practice if they adopted them. And they were right, pencils are in fact a game changer. Others were worried that they would not have enough time to learn to use them properly. 


I have a wider vision than a pencil suite for our school. I'm considered a bit of a maverick and many of my staff look at me and shake their heads sadly. You see, I have a vision for pencils that I think will transform our school and enhance learning for all our students. Wait for it - I am advocating one pencil for every child in the school! And even more radical than that, I want to introduce pencils that can be used by students while they are on the move. Yes, I know it sounds absurd, but I think it will work. Needless to say, I have had many objections and lots of opposition from all quarters.

Some teachers, led by our school pencil co-ordinator, have complained that we made a considerable investment on the pencil suite, and it's being used regularly for very important teaching. OK, so there is only one pencil between every four children, but at least the pencils are being used consistently, she argues. Some occasionally break and have to be sent away to be fixed, but we also have a parent who is familiar with pencils, and has one at home. He comes in occasionally to fix them, which saves us some money. 


My idea is for the school to invest more money so that each child can walk around while using their pencils, and that they can even take them home with them! Yes, I know it's an extremely radical idea, and that's the very reason I am receiving so much opposition. Some of my teaching staff are arguing that we could better spend the money on more chalk for the blackboards. Others are warning that children will either damage the pencils or worse, lose them if they take them out of the school. Pencils are meant to be used for education, they say, not for fun.

Even the parents are complaining. Some have written a very strong letter to the governors, suggesting that if we give a pencil to each of the children to bring home, they will need to revise their home contents insurance, in case any disaster occurs, and the child damages the pencil in some way. Some of the richer families don't seem to mind, as they have better pencils at home than we could possibly buy for the school. It's a kind of pencil envy I suppose. There does seem to be a pencil divide across the local community. I am confident though that giving one pencil to each student will address this problem.

Then there are the objections from the Tax Payers Alliance, and other pressure groups who have even gone on to the local TV station to complain that we are being irresponsible, and are wasting valuable tax payers money on purchasing a pencil for every child. 'In my day', said the TPA spokeperson, 'we used slates and styluses, and shared them around, and we were happy. One pencil per child is simply a gimmick'. To be blunt, I think they are missing the point. I strongly believe that pencils are the future of learning, and the more untethered they are, the greater will be the flexibility of learning for all subjects across the curriculum.

One of the strongest arguments from some of my teaching staff though is that they claim to be pencil immigrants, while the children are pencil natives. The kids seem to have such an affinity with the pencils, whilst the staff struggle to use them and get embarrassed when they accidentally use the wrong end, or the point is blunt, and they don't know how to sharpen it. Some teacher have warned that increased use of the pencil can be addictive, and will cause all sorts of problems such as writer's cramp, eye strain, raised incidences of graffiti in the school toilets and rude cartoons of teachers passed around the room. Such dangers though, are far outweighed by the benefits of mobile, personalised pencils.

So we will forge on with my new one child, one pencil scheme, and as a school, we will make it work. We will actually purchase the new second generation (2G) pencils, which have erasers attached, and in so doing, these multi-functional tools will offer a revolutionary approach to learning. They are also much faster and last longer than the old pencils. I will close with this inspirational quote: 'Any teacher who can be replaced by a pencil... should be! - Arthur C. Chalk.

(Inspired by the Twitter #pencilchat hashtag)

Image source


A head teacher writes... by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Barefoot keynote

This week at the ICELF event at Unitec in Auckland I was given one of the highest honours I have ever received. My opening keynote at the conference was preceded by a Maori Powhiri (welcoming ceremony) in the Marae (Maori sacred meeting house) followed by the ceremonial welcome which included the pressing of noses and foreheads (Hongi) with several of the university staff and dignitaries. This was quite an amazing experience, because in effect, it made me a member of the extended family of the institution (Whanau). I have to admit it was quite a humbling and emotional experience, but what followed - an invitation to address the entire gathering of over 200 delegates inside the Marae, was just as great an honour because, I was informed, very few guests are ever allowed to do this. I imagine that now I am a member of the family, this was the reason. Everyone was required to enter the Marae barefoot, and I have to say this was the first time I delivered a keynote with no shoes on. Somehow though, it was very appropriate, in such a place rich with tradition.

The Marae on the Unitec campus in Auckland is an intricately carved structure which is used for social and sacred purposes - it's walls and pillars tell the story of the Maori people and their journey through history. The Mount Albert campus of Unitec is situated on a site that was once a part of the settlement area belonging to the Ngati Awa people. Later I had the pleasure to meet the designer and creator of the entire structure and discuss with him some of his wonderful creations. Unlike many of the more traditionally crafted Marae, the this meeting hall is a unique fusion of ancient craft and new technology. The centre post for example has been forged in metal with laser images engraved down its length. The fine carvings on each of the joists, central spine and walls of this very spacious building told a different story of the lives of the Maori people and included their first encounter with western seafarers who sailed into their harbour. Auckland is also known as the City of Sails, and this was clearly represented on the rear wall of the Marae. The front wall, in front of which I spoke, depicted a large white cloud (The Maori name for New Zealand - Aotearoa - means land of the Long White Cloud), and decending below the cloud are vast legions of people, emerging as created beings. The relevance of the cloud and the social throng was not lost on us as we discussed new forms of technology mediated learning and social media. The entire interior of the Marae is lit cleverly in a manner that enhances the spectacle, but the irony of the event was not lost on me. Here I was talking about the future, surrounded by a traditionally constructed space (not a single metal nail was used), and even with the evidence of technological influence, the stark contrasts between the past and the future somehow amplified the experience and made it even more poignant. A useful summary of my speech can be read here on this blog.

I am extremely grateful to the organisers of ICELF for inviting me to participate in such an excellent and inspirational event. Delegates travelled from more than 20 countries to attend, and they represented all sectors of education. Over the two days we heard a number of excellent presentations and attended some very engaging workshops on e-learning and technology supported learning. Outstanding sessions by Derek Wenmoth (Core Education, NZ), Thomas Cochrane (AUT, NZ), Agnes Kukulska-Hulme (OU, UK) and Judy Kay (University of Sydney, Australia) gave excellent value to the discourse. ICELF was the first event of its kind in New Zealand, but I strongly suspect that it will not be the last. As the organisers will no doubt agree, the impetus is now there for a strong movement for change in New Zealand education. The ICELF team deserves to be at the vanguard of that change.

Image source and ICELF


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