Learning Conversations

The value of blogging is well discussed in the literature (e.g. see Rebecca’s recent post pointing to some of these sources and discussion from a prospective teacher perspctive). Indeed, it’s interesting to think about this ‘blogs in education’ matrix 6 years after it was flagged by Oehlert in a blog post in October, 2003.  I think the extreme right and left of this matrix needs major expansion. The possibilities for ‘the rest of the Net’ (in all four quadrants’) are significant. For example, the possibilities for students networking with experts and peers from around the world are extensive (see top left and bottom left sections of the matrix). It’s also interesting to think about ‘micro-blogging’ (e.g. using Twitter) and how it might ‘fit’ into this matrix.  Once again, the ‘connection’ affordance is important and the use of Twitter would feature in the left and right extremes of the matrix. However, this matrix probably needs a 3rd temporal dimension to fully capture the immediacy and convenience of micro-blogging. (Thanks to this Flickerer for above image)

Some colleagues and I have recently been discussing a possible framework for thinking about mobile learning environments. What are the distinctive features of these environments?
Here are three possible dimensions of such a framework:
1. Space or location. Mobile learning devices can be used in a range of ‘places’ ranging from classrooms in formal learning settings to home environments to more informal ‘3^rd spaces’.
2. Communication. Learners often communicate through a mobile device on a small scale (e.g. a phonecall or text message) or via a large network (such as Twitter). Conversations can be asynchronous, or more often leverage the convenience and immediacy of being synchronous or ‘real-time’. (Even new bloggers very quickly appreciate this sense of connection). Of course, mobile devices may be used on an individual, personal basis and may not involve any communication (although they may elicit face-face communications!).
3. Activity. This dimension could be informed by Hedberg’s ‘options for technology use’ in education (p. 176). It features (local or networked-based) activities ranging from accessing (or ‘pulling in’ content eg. listening to a podcast) to use of applications for presentational or representational purposes (such as some iPhone apps) to more generative activities (or ‘pushing’ content) such as capturing and sharing media with a community via the microblogosphere.

Hedberg, J. G. (2006). E-learning futures? Speculations for a time yet to come. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(2), 171-183.

(Thanks to this Flickerer)

There are some wonderful creative examples of ICT use in UK Education at Stephen Heppell’s Be Very Afraid site . Common themes seem to be authentic, project-based learning, audience, ownership and media literacy. I also noticed that almost every student interviewed had developed great interest & a sense of value of the specific topics discussed  (in History, Science, Music etc.). For example, these Year 5 students developed a real interest in Vikings and their place in their local history. Like this writing class, their project involved an initial excursion to develop ‘real-world’ links. The use of mobile phones to capture media as part of the interesting Year 8 and 9 multiculturalism project at Lampton HS also emphasised ‘authenticity’, involving ‘life like’ tasks which require decision making and exposure to real world information, and also allow students to generate their own problems to solve (CTGV, 1990).  Other projects, such as the ‘100 faces in 100 places’ project, followed a more participatory model of authenticity (Radinsky et al., 1998), involving real community members and activities that potentially become an integral part of the community.

CTGV (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt) (1990). Technology and the design of generative learning environments. Educational Technology, 31(5), 34-40.

Radinsky, J. et al (1998). A framework for authenticity: Mutual benefits partnerships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Image above made available under Creative Commons 2.0 Attribution Licence. Photo avaliable here

This recent video (see below) considers 20 ways to use an iPod (and other mobile devices) in education. It’s interesting to consider new technologies like this and where they currently fit into the ‘Hype Cycle’. Will iPods (with associated applications) and other mobile devices follow technologies such as blogs and become well accepted amongst the education community as potentially powerful learning technologies (depending on how they’re used, of course)? If this does happen, will schools opt for cheaper ‘class sets’ of iPods rather than purchasing more expensive laptops or less flexible desktop arrangements?
More importantly, it’s interesting to analyse videos like this one and explore how many uses might approach Hedberg’s (2006) ‘generativity’ level of ICT use (see Table 1 on p5) ie. use of ICTs to encourage “learners to construct their understanding of phenomena” (p5) as distinct from presentational and representational uses of learning technologies. A couple of uses approaching this level were flagged in the Youtube clip (see below), although there were many others that seemed to replicate traditional instructionist approaches. One interesting example shown was the use of a mobile device to capture, view and review video footage (eg. of your own teaching).

Hedberg, J. G. (2006). Searching for disruptive pedagogies: matching pedagogies to the technologies. Paper presented at the Curriculum Corporation 13th National Conference. Retrieved 6/8/09, from http://cmslive.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/Hedberg_Paper.pdf

I recently revisited the term ‘bricoleur’ while reading Brown (2000). The metaphor seems most suitable for thinking about the type of new media activities some children are participating in. As well as reading, critiquing and listening to new media, these young people are typically creating, ‘mashing’, publishing and ‘talking around’ personally and culturally meaningful artefacts. In this sense, they become digital ‘bricoleurs’, developing an ability to find something and use it in a new way to build further unique artefacts they value. There are especially high levels of ownership with these media creations, and there is often a strong ‘re-mix’ culture, where young people re-use others’ artefacts and expressions (Hsi 2007). User-friendly and accessible collaboration tools, such as those found in Web2.0 spaces, enable young people to actively participate in tasks, giving them a ‘voice’ and a strong sense of audience as they explore, share and interact with others. Examples can be seen in the growing number of outlets for young people’s digital video creations. For example, their digital videos can be displayed to a wide audience using a variety of new tools (or see here ) or perhaps via local or more global contests.
Brown, J. (2000). Growing up digital: How the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. Change, March/April, 11-20.
Hsi, S. (2007). Conceptualizing learning from the everyday activities of digital kids.
International Journal of Science Education, 29:12, 1509 – 1529
Image above made available under Creative Commons 2.0 Attribution Licence. Photo avaliable here.

There has recently been interesting research on games-based learning. Increasing numbers of children and teenagers have grown up in a wired world and are often immersed in a (recreational) strong games culture, with increasing use of massively multiplayer online games (or MMOGs). Game users have been shown to exhibit collaboration skills & identity formation, team-based problem solving skills, systemic thinking, and not surprisingly, computer literacy (eg. see Gee, 2003 or Squire 2005).

Steinkuehler (2006) investigated games-related forums (eg. in a MMO called World of Warcraft) and found valuable informal learning conversations, including debates of complex questions and a ‘collective intelligence’ where solutions were debated and built upon by other participants.

However, games are often viewed by teachers as irrelevant, risky distractions (Gee, 2003) or simply a reward for finishing ‘legitimate’ learning tasks; rather than opportunities for literacy development or learning conversations. Over the next few years, it will be important to further understand the impact and relationship between recreational ‘digital play’ and formal learning.

Reference

Steinkuehler, C. A. (2006). Massively multiplayer online videogaming as participation in a Discourse. Mind, Culture, & Activity, 13(1), 38-52.

Image made available under Creative Commons 2.0 Attribution Licence: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ Avaliable here