Welcome to SmartEducation
Pre-work; (RW)^2: Read, Watch, Reflect, Write
- Read and Reflect (RR): Please read the attached article (<<---), reflect on this paper and on your own experience with technology in your schools (e.g. what's the role of technology in education, your experience either as a teacher or as a student, ...).
This is a summary of a very interesting book:
Collins, A. & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolutions and the schooling in America. New York: Teachers College Press.
Yes!!reading a book by reading only a 10-page article!! Don't miss it!!
- Watch and Reflect (WR):Watch the TED video (<< ---) and reflect on it.
Nice talk! you will enjoy! believe us!
- Write (W): What’s your understanding and perception of "SmartEducation"? Please bring to class your definition of SmartEducation in less than 100 words. Please do NOT use these two words "education" and "smart". Do not share it with others at this moment, just save your definition on your laptops or smartphones. As part of our class activities, we will analyze your perceptions of "Smart Education", so Please do NOT forget to bring this short writing.
Presentation and Discussion
Station Session 1
Station Session 2
14:45 - 15:15
Station Session 3
15:15 - 15:45
Station Session 4
The theme of the first week is "engage" and "explore". We will encourage the team to share their own experience with technology in education–what they have enjoyed or failed, and what they believe will happen in the near future.
Understanding current technologies used in education
Explore and discuss the five areas in SmartEducation:
Try to testdrive some of the tools or systems, and discuss their experience and possible improvements.
Semicircle in the middle and five stations in the corners, each table with 4 chairs
Mindmap on flipcharts, color pens
- Sign card for each table
Session 1: Presentation (Engage)
5 min - Poll first. https://www.polleverywhere.com/
35 min Discussion - Use wordle to see common themes in definitions on smart education. Come up with definition as a class based on word cloud and compare it to our own comprehensive definition.
To have a better engagement of the entire class, we used insert Pollweverywhere slides into the PowerPoint deck. Polleverywhere slides enables us to collect feedbacks instantly from the audiences, and simultaneously present the data visually, like chart, graph or wordle, etc.
The final presentation and all the responds to the poll can be access at here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3hb057e6aon527o/SmartEducation1.pdf?dl=0
Session 2: Breakout (Explore)
Five workout stations were prepared. On each station, the guide will share few tools or system in each area for the audience to try out. After the test-drive, the audience will record their reflections, feedback or suggestions.
SmartSchool- Experiencing SmartBoard
SmartLearning- Trying below applications:
- LearnSmart: An adaptive learning application http://learnsmartadvantage.com/trial/
- Geometer's Sketchpad: A tangible and visual way to learn math http://www.keycurriculum.com
- Aleks: An adaptive learning system for mathematics http://www.aleks.com
At the end of the class, everyone is expected to sign up for the area that he/she wants to explore further. Based on the sign-up, they will be given different reading as homework.
Please sign up for the theme you would like to explore further. Only one name for each cell.
|Themes||Team Member 1||Team Member 2||Team Member 3||Team Member 4|
Tiffany: Technology plays different roles in education from being a tool to help support learning (e.g. math games to help reinforce concepts), as a concept to learn (e.g. learning to program a micro controller), and as a way to communicate (e.g. e-mail, Blackboard). In more recent years, relating back to the authors’ comment, technology is a tool where "Memorizing information is becoming less important with the web available, but people do need to learn how to find information, recognize when they need more information, and evaluate what they find.” This reminds me of a common “symptom” that many people (not necessarily teachers/students) experience. We know that we can simply search online for what we want to find, but how much do we really know outside of this process? Is memorizing or understanding a concept necessarily a bad thing? What happens when we can’t readily search for an answer in situations like exams and interviews? Moreover, when reading through the summarized section on incompatibilities between schooling and technology, it reminded heavily of the different types of teachers from the first week’s reading by Scardamalia on “Collective Cognitive Responsibility for the Advancement of Knowledge”. Are these incompatibilities actually incompatibilities or are they representative of different teaching personas? Based on my own experiences, I can appreciate many of these struggles between education and technology. For instance, as a student I’ve gone through the rite of passage of writing a multiple choice final exam. Furthermore, I agree with the sentiment that education reform with technology needs to be a diverse and collaborative process where there are many stakeholders (e.g. parents, citizens, school leaders, teachers, and technology leaders).
Cynthia: this paper does a good job in outlining some of the ways technology has and will affect education. Some of the areas where there will be big revolution seem to be the role of school as a physical institution and the role of the teacher. I think new smart education technology will have an enormous impact on the ability for students have a more global perspective on knowledge. Also, smart education tools will open up the classroom so that learning is not restricted to the classroom resources, teacher and student knowledge. Furthermore, smart education will hopefully put more ‘action’ into learning, allowing for students to better connect content knowledge with their lived lives and look at what they are learning through a more critical lens.
Stephanie: Initially, when the paper said, "draft-do not distribute", I thought it was a new paper that was about to go to press. As I read, I guess I wasn't thinking the information was new, or a revolution. These are all ideas that have been around for at least 9 years if not more. I am not trying to be critical of the article, I just didn't think it was revolutionary. As for the incompatibility between schooling and technology, I have heard many educators say that education is about ten years behind society and culture. So if, by my accounts, this article is discussing information from nine years ago, we should be seeing implementation in the next year or two, unless it has already begun. As an example I have provided a quick summary of a 2007 article I recently reviewed....
In Gilbert's (2007) article, she introduces her thesis by acknowledging the wide spread use of information communication technologies in education and the belief that, "ICT's are seen as a 'magic bullet' that will revolutionize teaching and learning, and solve all our problems" (p. 115). However, she also quickly adds that the connection between ICT and Knowledge Society is missing for educators and suggests this is the reason technology has "not revolutionized teaching and learning" (p. 115) as of yet.
So, what is the difference between beliefs about traditional knowledge and knowledge society beliefs?
Traditional knowledge is linked to both the Industrial Age and Disciplinary Designs of curriculum where the purpose of education was to prepare students to enter a work force that demanded linear thinking, and memorization. Gilbert links it to Plato when she states this education system attempted to "train the mind" (p. 116) and involved exposure to "particular kinds of knowledge" (p. 116). Certain curriculum was deemed more difficult than others and this was used to determine who entered higher education. In this belief, the mind is a container, where information is stored. Economically speaking, Industrial Age was a time of "exploiting natural resources" (p. 118). Mass production was used in both economic and educational thinking. Schools resembled factories, with hallways, cubicles, bells, and students are grouped by age into grades, all moving through the same curriculum, presented and evaluated in the same ways.
Not surprisingly, Knowledge society is linked to the Information Age, that seeks to capitalize on innovation, speed, and accessibility, in an attempt to revamp old ways of doing things, and continually remodel in an attempt to stay current and up to date. Knowledge can be found anywhere, and from anyone, although the challenge is now of verification of sources along with validity. Economically speaking, Knowledge is the "key driver for economic growth" (p. 118) In this regard, Knowledge is not limited to education contexts. "Knowledge is now innovation, innovation is quality, and quality control is knowledge management" (p. 118). In this belief, the mind is a resource, and information flows in and out, something "used to connect with others" (p. 119) and new information is created through this process.
One aspect Gilbert (2007) raises that I find of utmost importance is the idea of "performativity". She describes it as the ability to "take elements from one knowledge system, put them together with elements from another different knowledge system, re-arrange them to do something new and different" (p. 120). I understand this to mean the application of knowledge, and it is something that, as a math teacher, I am constantly trying to develop with students. Yes, mastery is important, however, real world problem solving demands the ability to take the skill you have learned in one situation and constantly exhibit an ability to apply it to new situations as they arise and without the obvious cues that it is required. The idea of mixing elements from different knowledge systems is relevant and made easier with knowledge building communities or social constructions of knowledge, where diversity and different backgrounds allows groups of individuals to combine seemingly unrelated things to develop an innovative design or solution. In this regard, the traditional approach, where everyone held the same information is inferior, since it does not allow for new insight or connections to different knowledge or information.
Gilbert, J. (2007). Knowledge, the disciplines, and learning in the digital age. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 6(2), 115-122. doi: 10.1007/s10671-007-9022-1
What is the reason education is so slow to adapt? Why is the connection missing between ICT and Knowledge Society for educators?
Robin: Much like Stephanie, I was initially unsure of the timeframe of this article and the scope which it aimed to address. This article needed a scalpel's touch, and I'm here to take a stab. This article did a great job summarizing the various viewpoints, perspectives, glories and cautions of technological platforms within education. However, I feel like the authors' reliance on essentialized opinions undermined their ability to speak about the formation of educational processes in balance - where revolution in education is not deemed a "zero sum game" but a collaboration between stakeholders. In the article, it seemed that educators and stakeholders become "pessimists" or "optimists" based on their ability to either enthusiastically participate or sternly oppose the process of technological integration. I am a very critical person when it comes to technology and education. Does this mean I am pessimistic? No, the opposite in fact. It just means that I am wary of giving complete control to one particular platform before we have sussed out their shortcomings and long term implications.Technological corporations are chomping at the bit to see their products in the hands of students in the classroom, but we need to be mindful of coordinating these effects so that the educational experience and their positive outcomes are analyzed and reassessed, rather than gifted in the hopes of creating consumers over and above informed minds. Good article to start off a conversation about the spectrum of opinions that form around this topic!
Alisa: This paper provides much fuel for discussion, however my focus here will be on a couple of points in particular. First was the section on the “incompatibilities between schooling and technology.” I’m grappling with the idea that schools should move away from “uniform learning/standardization” in favour of “customization/specialization.” While I agree that one would certainly be more engaged in learning if he/she had the freedom to pursue his/her own interests, I’m not sure that the goal of schooling should always be one of constant engagement… Pursuing ideas that you aren’t necessarily interested in, or participating in tasks that you aren’t necessarily good at is a valuable part of the learning experience. (It’s unfortunate when students are turned off from a subject because of a poor teacher or a poor class experience - but I still believe that (in K-12, at least), having the opportunity to learn these subjects is important). Related to the idea of “customization” is "Differentiated Instruction” (DI), which is a common buzzword in K-12 education (where teachers ‘differentiate’ their lessons or assignments based on the unique needs/abilities of each learner). The problem, so far, with DI is that the mentality has become about “learning to live with people’s differences” rather than integrating them or productively turning them into something new. We differentiate, but we don’t reconcile. The result is still individual learners working in parallel (siloed). However, if we were to move to a more collaborative model of learning, individual differences (interests, skills, abilities etc) could be leveraged in the pursuit of a common/shared goal. I’m not sure if having a common/shared goal qualifies as “standardization,” (I suppose it would depend on whether this shared learning goal has been decided top-down, e.g. by the Ministry, or if the goal was chosen by the students themselves), but either way, I believe that shared goals are important for bringing the siloed learners/skills/expertise back together. There is a term I really like: “knowmad” (a nomadic knowledge worker; someone creative, imaginative, and innovative who can work with almost anybody, anytime, anywhere). Whereas industrialization required people to settle in one place to perform a very specific role or function, the jobs associated with knowledge and information workers have become much less specific in regard to task and place. Collins & Halverson reference internet cafes as “the libraries of the future” (p. 5), I think coffee shops have become the preferred workplace of knowmads. What happens when the investment banker sitting next to the architect have a conversation? What new ideas, products, and services might be created? Technologies allow for knowmads to work either at a specific place, virtually, or any blended combination. Knowmads can instantly reconfigure and recontextualize their work environments, and greater mobility is creating new opportunities. The remixing of places and social relationships - including those within schools & classrooms - means that learning, work, play, sharing/networking can occur in almost any configuration. Technology will NOT make schools obsolete; schools are NOT going to go away... They are the “coffee shops” for our future knowmads.
Yudi: This article is very comprehensive for it outlined and implied a future map between schooling and learning in the age of technology. With the rapid changing of technology, learning happens everywhere and it shapes our education innovations. Therefore, new literacies and abilities are highly required and becoming more important in order to feed and cater the demands of the development of technologies. Rather than being standardized, students should learn in a customized and organic process with the participation of creativity and critical thinking.
Chenxi: This reading talks about big ideas about technology changing education. Technology is definitely reforming education, like the authors said in the beginning, this transformation is like the transition made by the forming of schools. But in my opinion, these two revolutions are different. The second one done by the adoption of technology is not changing the way we get educated, but reshaped education by changing the way in which we have access to information. The arguments given by the authors in this paper are solid and profound. The potential losses and gains are worth thinking. While, in my own experience, I can hardly see these changes discussed in the paper brought by technology we adopt in school. For example, online collaborative tools used inschool, courses taught online from time to time did not change the nature of teaching and learning. Maybe because we just didn't notice like we seldom appreciate the creation of the Internet, or maybe because the transformation does not happen just in school, but mostly outside the setting of "formal education". That's why I think,the more obvious changes made by technology are that now we bring laptops toclasses and we can acquire knowledge by our wills, we can search for information from school library anytime and anywhere.
Sarah: It is interesting to note that equity will be a problem when more technology is involved in education. But you will never know what a child can learn from outside of school. Sometime poor parents may provide then more valuable experience, practice knowledge based on real life. Many great businessmen came from poor families with little education from top educational institute. It is also hardly to say that diversity will be a problem because public school usually have children from the similar age, culture, neighbourhood. While learning from outside school may involve a more diverse community of friend and teachers. But I believe the less control will definitely be a problem since school provide a unified learning system that almost every student follows the same standard and same evaluation system. While outside of classroom it will be difficult for them to control what students learn. With the support of technology, however, parents and teachers may be able to monitor students' behaviours, learning curves and etc.
Peter: There are a lot of interesting ideas in here. I agree with some of the other comments that the ideas are a bit dated ("children are playing complex video games" seems so codgy) but (to me at least) the argument is current. The education system is so complex, it is challenging to bring all these trends together. I am thinking about how important it is to teach children "digital literacy" and skills for evaluating and critically engaging with digital resources.
Stef: I'm going to think about it from an ESL perspective. I wonder how technology will affect learners who are trying to learn new languages. I feel like people are already using a lot of different technologies to supplement their learning but there isn't really one thing out there that works for everyone who is a beginner. I think it's easier to use these things once a certain level of proficiency is reached. Of course this could all change in the near future. Something I think would be great is if technology enabled more tutors to work with students in an easier way, to take some power away from big corporations that are buying up small schools. Class sizes could be smaller and students could learn faster if their teacher had a specific technology - app, game, whatever - that corresponded with their lesson that the student worked on at home. Just some simple thoughts
Stephanie: Sorry guys for promoting this but it fits with our SMART Education topic, and I reference Jim in my publication, along with the idea of Gamification so I thought I would share it with you.
May 27-28, 2015 Ryerson University
Here is the final version for publication: (See if you can spot the Knowledge Media references)
I have a theory. It is an emerging conceptual development of what I believe education is for and what it could be. My theory is based on the premise that children are constantly constructing knowledge based on their environment and the discourse they are surrounded by; this discourse is not limited to face-to-face interactions. Today’s discourse is a combination of real and virtual worlds that intertwine in students’ lives and cross boundaries of formalities between what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. I also believe that left to their own devices, students form understandings of society based on the discourses they are exposed to and the reaction of others while they witness this discourse. Egan (2003) notes that, “in all human societies, children are initiated into particular modes of making sense of their experience and the world about them” (p. 9).
Foundational curriculum figures such as John Dewey and Jean Jacques Rousseau celebrated the exploration of the child as a natural phenomena and criticized a more stringent approach that limited their ability to learn from their own experiences. This curriculum argument has continued into the 21st century with a long standing debate of what should be taught and how. Although it has become universally acknowledged that students require skills regarding digital citizenship and the ethical use of technology, a clear understanding of how that should be taught is still under review. What I am proposing is a radical curriculum design that embraces the use of social media in the classroom and places the problematic discourse under a microscope for dissection and discussion with the teacher as the mediator and facilitator. Egan, (2003) suggests, “to know what the curriculum should contain requires a sense of what the contents are for” (p. 14). In this paper, it is assumed that the purpose of education is twofold: primarily to keep students safe, and secondly to prepare them to live in the real world. Beauchamp (1982) suggests curriculum theorists have a job. It is to “describe the set of events, or phenomena, with which they are concerned in their work” (p. 24) and then purposefully and whole heartedly seek out and attack problems that are complicated by “searching out relationships among the phenomena and relationships among the relationships” (Ibid., p. 24). My theory is based on this premise. I am concerned about student abilities to understand social networking relationships and social media in general.
Social construction of knowledge, “is a direct reflection of Vygotsky (1978) sociocultural theory of learning” (Applefield, Huber, & Moallem, 2000, p. 38). It is devised from the notion that knowledge is constructed through social interactions, and these interactions allow individuals to “refine their own meanings and help others find meanings” (Applefield et. al., 2000, p. 38). In the case of social media, students are constructing knowledge as they witness events and discourse streaming down their computer screen. I propose as educators we have the opportunity to allow them to experience this within the safety of our classroom, and furthermore, we allow students to engage in a discussion about what is occurring. In so doing, we, as educators, help to monitor their social constructions of knowledge and have the opportunity to re-phrase, redirect or offer alternative perspectives when complex situations arise.
Building Community in the Classroom
One of the benefits associated with using collaborative work in classrooms is the possibility of also building knowledge communities (Scardamalia, 2002; Slotta & Najafi, 2013). The idea of building communities of knowledge became of interest last century, but now, in the 21st century, encompasses the use of Web 2.0 technologies (Slotta et. al., 2013). If social media is seen as a Web 2.0 technology, and collaborative discussions emerge regarding what students witness online, the use of social media in the classroom could potentially help to build knowledge communities as well.
Terwel (1999) suggests that “radical constructivism in education” (p. 198) may fail if the challenges faced when attempting to acquire knowledge are not overcome; these challenges are attributed to “prejudices, naïve concepts, misconceptions, subjectivism, solipsism and uncommitted relativism” (Ibid., p. 198). Using social media in the classroom, followed by group discussions, allows students to challenge their perceptions and beliefs by forcing students to rationalize their thinking. Additionally, the classroom environment encourages students to work collaboratively, to discuss their thoughts and actions, to monitor and occasionally challenge each other’s behaviour. In fact the importance of discussing the behaviour in the moment and environment in which it occurs is of the utmost importance. Pontecorvo (1993) relates to Bruner (1966) when he states, “cognitive development, in its overall definition, cannot even be interpreted outside a culture, i.e., outside the emotional, educational, and social mediations which make it possible” (Pontecorvo, 1993, p. 295).
In order to construct knowledge from social interactions, it is necessary to question, challenge, inquire, reason and explain thinking and/or actions. The justification of behaviour and thought has been shown to be a “crucial tool for learning to reason and to explain” (Ibid. p. 293). Social interactions between children reveal much more than their thinking; they also reveal their emotions and situate each learner within their own personal contexts. Beyond this, as students begin to contribute to the discussion, both support and opposition arise. Pontecorvo believes it is important to consider the “role of disagreement in classroom discussions” (Pontecorvo, 1993, p. 301). His findings provided evidence that “oppositional interaction supports children’s efforts to produce ‘good’ arguments” (Ibid., p. 301-302). One reason attributed to this development is related to students expanding on their thoughts, and providing examples or evidence that supported their argument in an effort to persuade others.
What it Means to be Human
What does it mean to be human? The answer to this question inevitably involves the making of mistakes, and encompasses various interactions with others in our environment. What does it mean to be intelligent? A common phrase that exemplifies this thought would be that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results; therefore, one might suggest intelligence is developed when one learns from their mistakes.
Gamification is a recent development in education that exemplifies this belief (Brown & Thomas, 2011). Curriculum theorists and reformers such as John Seely Brown and Douglas Thomas, are suggesting when students learn curriculum as though it was a video game, they learn to adapt and change their methods in order to advance to the next level. Related to this idea, is one of task persistence, since students are driven to attempt levels repeatedly until they have mastered the skills needed to advance. In one meta-analysis of learning interventions for low achievers, success was related to the combination of peer tutors and task persistence (Baker, Gersten, & Lee, 2002). Another study claimed developing “relational equity” helped students to work together and achieve more success than simply working together without it (Boaler, 2008). Conclusions can be drawn from these claims that when students work together, relate to each other, and show task persistence, they increase their intelligence.
A review of Kincheloe (2003) supports both of these views. He believes to be educated involves personal transformation. Therefore, one could surmise he believes the purpose of school is “to realize that the nature of the interactions in which the self engages actually changes the structure of the mind” (p. 48), and with this education it is imperative “to act on self and world in a just and an intelligent manner” (Ibid., p. 48).
Historically speaking, many curricular theorists have already laid the foundation to support the use of social media in the classroom through their experience-centered, humanistic and radical curriculum designs. John Dewey believed that children “exist in a personal world of experiences” (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013, p. 166) and that their “spontaneous power -- their demand for self-expression -- cannot be suppressed” (Ibid., p. 166). Furthermore, Dewey believed children’s educators should analyze experiences, since it was these experiences that shaped their knowledge.
Additionally, Ornstein & Hunkins (2013) refer to both Jürgen Habermas and Carl Rogers as being two prominent curriculum theorists. Specifically, radical constructivists draw from Jürgen Habermas who believed teachers are “awareness makers” (p. 167), who “emphasize that education’s goal is emancipation of the awareness’s, competencies, and attitudes that people need to take control of their lives” (Ibid., p. 167). Humanistic curriculum designers relate to Carl Rogers who suggested educating students in environments that encourage “genuineness, empathy, and respect for self and others” (Ibid., p. 168); further stating that “individuals able to initiate action and take responsibility are capable of intelligent choice and self-direction, where mistakes are accepted as part of the learning process” (Ibid., p. 168). The idea of blending feelings with knowledge emerged in the 1970’s with the notion of “confluence education” (Ibid., p. 169) a combination of both affective and cognitive domains.
This type of learning and teaching is not without challenges. One of the most obvious would appear to be the ability of an educator to fill the multiple roles I have outlined above. While some facilitators may feel comfortable with an intellectual approach, many would shy away from being a moral, spiritual or emotional leader for their students. The objective relationship that helped to remove any blurring of lines between teachers and students, helped to keep political and religious agendas and backgrounds out of the educational movement of the 21st century. However, is it necessary to paint a completely black and white picture of the role of an educator in today’s classrooms? How do we, as educators, facilitate change or help students to navigate real world problems if we are unwilling to wade into the water with them?
Many educators choose not to participate on social media websites. I believe this is due to the lack of rules in online environments, leaving an impression that they are unpredictable and uncontrollable. It is also apparent that respectful engagement is not always the case on social media websites. Trust and privacy issues thus counter the freedom offered by social media. This impression may have an impact on how educators approach incidents of cyber-bullying. I believe that anti-bullying campaigns and education offered in schools would be more effective if educators integrated digital citizenship with the aid of social media into their daily classroom lives. Furthermore, I believe this approach to teaching requires teachers to step into an uncomfortable area, where real world problems and emotions intertwine, but where the possibility of truly making a difference in students' lives can be found.
Applefield, J. M., Huber, R., & Moallem, M. (2000). Constructivism in theory and practice: Toward a better understanding. The High School Journal, 35-53.
Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Lee, D. S. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. The Elementary School Journal, 51-73.
Beauchamp, G. A. (1982). Curriculum theory: Meaning, development, and use. Theory into practice, 21(1), 23-27.
Boaler, J. (2008). Promoting ‘relational equity’ and high mathematics achievement through an innovative mixed‐ability approach. British Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 167-194.
Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change (Vol. 219). Lexington, KY: CreateSpace.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). On cognitive growth II. Studies in cognitive growth, 1-67.
Egan, K. (2003). What is curriculum? Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 1(1), 9-16.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2003). Critical ontology: Visions of selfhood and curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 19(1), 47-64.
Ornstein, A.C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2013). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. Boston: Pearson.
Pontecorvo, C. (1993). Social interaction in the acquisition of knowledge. Educational Psychology Review, 5(3), 293-310.
Puntambekar, S. (2006). Analyzing collaborative interactions: divergence, shared understanding and construction of knowledge. Computers & Education, 47(3), 332-351.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. Liberal education in a knowledge society, 97, 67-98.
Slotta, J. D., & Najafi, H. (2013). Supporting collaborative knowledge construction with Web 2.0 technologies. In Emerging Technologies for the Classroom (pp. 93-112). Springer New York.
Terwel, J. (1999). Constructivism and its implications for curriculum theory and practice. Journal of curriculum studies, 31(2), 195-199.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S.Scribner & E. Souberman, Eds. and Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Task 2:Watch and Reflect (WR): Sir Ken Robinson: Bring on the learning revolution!
Stephanie: First of all, thanks for sharing a TED/Sir Ken Robinson talk, I really enjoy his perspective and humour, and this one of my favourites. I found his analogies of the similarities between the effects of fast food on our health and the standardization of education on our children to be an interesting concept. The final poetic image of treading lightly on student's dreams was a gentle reminder of the power we hold as educators and the influence our words/actions can have on our students.
Tiffany: “…Education in a way dislocates very many people from their natural talents, and human resources are like natural resources, they’re often buried deep. You have to go looking for them and not just lying around, you have to create the circumstances here they show themselves.” I really enjoyed this analogy since it sheds light on different abilities and skills, as well as that one method of education may not fit all. Further to this, I liked his comparison between the concept of linearity as applied to education and life, and how we should move away from this model. I enjoyed his anecdote about the fireman and how his career didn’t fit into the traditional model of “educating students for college” again draws back to the concept about natural talents and human resources, and that everyone has their place. It relates back to the thought that we should move away from the model of education as an industrial manufacturing process and more towards a “farmer’s” model.
Cynthia: this was a very inspirational talk. I think there are some really interesting examples. I like the one about the watch – this is an issue in current math classrooms. Telling time via an analog clock has been a big topic in grade 2/3 for years but now more than ever students are becoming more and more disinterested because it not longer applies to there lives… I think Smart education will be essential is helping teachers and students develop learning so that it nourishes their spirits since it will allow for more accommodations, modifications and will let the outside world into our classrooms.
Yudi: This TED talk is very insightful for it helped us reconsider and redefine the concept of “education”. Education system nowadays has been standardized and follows the mode of “fast food production” therefore it triggers the consideration on how to feed students’ interests and how to develop their diversity of abilities. Meanwhile, with the rapid development of multimedia and Internet, it provides an opportunity in the transformation of curriculum whereas it helps to customize and personalize student’s demand and stimulate their creativity to a large extent.
It also reflects me on another TED talk by Ken Robinson regarding Schools Kill Creativity. It inspires us to rethink the fundamental principles on which we were educating children and in what way school is helping us learning.
Alisa: I've seen this video a bunch of times (and re-mixed it here - also starring Jim!). After watching the Apple unveiling the other day, I had to chuckle at the part where Sir Ken pointed out that few people under the age of 25 wear a wrist-watch (a "single use device"). And here we are today, reinventing it as a 'wearable' and adding "smart" to its name...
Chenxi: The watch joke makes me think that technology decides the way a generation acts. Not only the way of learning and teaching, but also the way of living and thinking. So of course education is reforming, perhaps would be upside down someday. The questions we need to think about are how to recognize the changing, how to direct the reforming of education, how to make it better than worse.
Peter: Alisa I love your video! Latching on to the watch thing and the ideas we take for granted; I think it is also important to consider what kinds of taken-for-granted ideas we are bringing into the classroom (and learning) with new technologies.
Robin: Alisa, that video is incredible and informative! 10/10. And thanks for sharing the Ken Robinson videos. I remember that moment when I first started at OISE, peaking behind the curtain of Oz and seeing what we have designed to be a mass-informed, mass-distributed education system not far off from the fast food design. I support his call to arms about revolutionizing education. But how do you ensure that message is shared and equally supported through out the intricate power structure of education? I guess it's just a matter of starting somewhere you see being most effective for your scope and scale. This makes the classroom an effective local to introduce a lot of these reformed ways of thinking and doing education. I was just short of throwing up jazz hands when he said, "human communities depend on a diversity of talent, not a singular conception of ability." I think this speaks to a lot of reformations and revolutions that are taking place in how we conceive our world and each other.
Sarah: I believe that smart education should be something that enhance education in all kinds of ways, rather than just focusing on students from classrooms. Education should itself be something that last for a life long time. Smart education breaks the boundaries of age, culture, location and etc. Thus it should focus on encouraging teaching and learning in various ways to enhance the education among a more diverse group of learners.
Mari: Watching the TED talk made me wonder why the society is not very well responsive to "innovation" as Ken Robinson says. Adopting to a new environment might be risky but personally I think if it is for goods it is better to be taken place. I also loved how he talked about the fact that not everyone should go to college! I come from a Persian background and middle eastern families in general are over obsessive about academic knowledge!!! (lol) Despite my parents beliefs I think that there are talents that cannot be explored in colleges and universities but still be very valuable to the society as a whole. It is somehow sad that many times we judge people based on their education and our attitude towards them changes respectively. I personally think that the current education system is not a good indicator of individuals capabilities and unique talents. So a "climate change in human resources" as Ken Robinson refers to it might be very interesting to watch.
Stef: I also agree with the college thing and I think there should be less stigma associated with not going to college. I often feel like my friends who have not pursued education after high school feel embarrassed and judged when it comes up in different situations. College (university) doesn't equal intelligence or even guarantee a job anymore. There should be more alternatives and maybe that's where technology and the revolution come in!
- No labels