Not Just a Teacher

There has been much written about Netiquette, communicating online and the intricacies of the online medium for dialogue. The sad thing is, I have read a lot of it but it doesn’t stop me finding Twitter introductions and the flow of the conversation, especially in the early stages of following/being followed, rather difficult.

Questions such as the following always invade my brain:

• Should I thank someone for following me?
• What should I do after the initial welcome, intros?
• If I want a new contact to look at something I have done or see if they are interested in something of mine, when should I move on to that conversations?
• When am I being pushy or being too lax?
• And what if there is something or theirs I want to be part of or something they have done/said etc, how quickly do I bring that up?
• When am I sounding too much like a groupie?

But even with these moments of discomfort, it doesn’t and will never stop me getting involved. We are in a relatively early stage in the development of this way of communicating and we need to find our own comfort zones, me included. I guess with some people, my way of communicating will come across well and others it wont. I will keep trying, though. Hope you don’t mind!

Introduction

A while back, I asked this question on Twitter:
What is the most worthwhile use of an academic’s time, lecture or tutorial?
It was a simple question or so I thought but then I am working in this space although not as an academic, hence my views struggle to be impartial.
This little conversation, made me think deeper about the question I was asking:

Background

Just to set the scene here: I see the lecture as still being touted as the mainstay of most of Higher Education. Yes, there are institutes out there who are moving away or already have moved away from this delivery method but I don’t think they are the majority. Ok, I don’t have facts and figures, empirical evidence here but through many conversations, observations and searching on university offerings online give me enough to go on. And, if most MOOCs are anything to go by, well…………..
But, is the lecture an effective use of an academic’s time?

Is that what a highly educated specialist should be devoting precious resources to in an increasingly time-pressurized environment?

Or is there a better use of that time?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FOSDEM_2008_Main_lecture_theatre.jpg

Lecture

I suppose it is best to clarify the meaning of ‘lecture’ first though. Lecture in this sense, is about somebody delivering content, an oral
presentation. For the spatial learners, this is a lecture theatre, typically tiered seating, with a person at the front talking and perhaps having supporting resources displayed. Yes, there might be some questions asked but this largely one-way delivery. In other words, lecturer talks, shows, explains…..students listen and try to understand (or more accurately try to stay awake!)

Tutorial

http://www.flickr.com/photos/yelahneb/6901154075/

Now, this conjures up many different images depending on personal experiences, subject studied, university attended, etc but Wikipedia does a good job of explaining it for me:

A tutorial is a method of transferring knowledge and may be used as a part of a learning process. More interactive and specific than a book or a lecture; a tutorial seeks to teach by example and supply the information to complete a certain task. Depending on the context a tutorial can take one of many forms, ranging from a set of instructions to complete a task to an interactive problem solving session (usually in academia). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutorial

What is the most worthwhile use of an academic’s time?

Well let’s summarise what seems to go on a lot in Higher Education:
Lectures –
Largely one way interaction
Very little opportunity for students to clarify misunderstandings or get explanations in areas where they need it
Often limited in learning styles
Same or similar content delivered in repeated sessions
Often very long (hours)
Attendance issues

Tutorials-
Very interactive if organised appropriately
Lots of opportunities for students to develop their understanding, learn from the academic and from their peers. Can involve problem solving, creative tasks, development exercises that have spin-offs in nurturing other skills in a student (eg communication, presentation skills)
Often based on applying knowledge, this allows students and the academic to see where understanding and indeed where misunderstandings are occurring.
Content will be different based on the needs of the students so repeated sessions are more dynamic.
Length of time usually hs more flexibility as the sessions are more flexible in what they are trying to achieve
Attendance issues can be addressed if students see the value in the sessions and get assistance in developing their knowledge on the course in question

Summary

The points made by Ian in the Twitter extract seem almost irrelevant when we look at the comparison above. Objectives, aims, size of cohort, etc. All of these don’t really make that much difference to how learning should be provided in this context, it seems to me.
If Blooms is considered to be the taxonomy we should be guided by when considering the essentials of learning, then the lecture, as described above, is getting nowhere near the higher levels yet tutorials are.
Of course, there is the argument that content needs to be delivered, facts, equations, principles, etc etc, need to be passed on to the learner. But, a highly paid specialist standing up and telling a group of students the same thing a few times a year.

Is that really a worthwhile use of an academic’s time?

How about this…
Every time I create a Jamie Oliver/Marco Pierre White/Rick Stein/<insert favourite chef> dish, do I need him/her there bouncing

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bfishadow/3634066843

around my kitchen telling me how to do it, as I sit impassively watching him? Or can I get the information, the techniques and the skills, the basic concepts of what I should be doing and how to do it, from some other medium rather than paying a fortune for him to come to my house?

Of course I would love the said chef to be there to guide me, show me where I am going wrong, point out better techniques, different approaches and ways of thinking about the dishes I am trying to master. And that to me, if I am to pay the fortune would where the money would be best invested.

If we apply this analogy to the issue of lectures and tutorials, to my mind, the question is a no-brainer. Surely, the specialist insight that an academic has in his/her field is best used not in a lecture but somewhere else.

In my last post Part 1, I talked about the issues listed in the title as being a major stumbling block to educational reform to make when:

• looking to transform education into a student centred, experience where independent study is at the heart of learning
• moving to online and/or blended approach
• learning and assessment becomes more of a social experience

This post ended with the following paragraph:

Rules around when, how and what should happen become more difficult for a variety of reasons and yes a lack of longevity with these ways of working is one of them. That has to be quite unsettling for some educators, hasn’t it really? But, can we really let that stand in our way and undermine the benefits of making such necessary changes?

And of course as you would expect my answer is a very loud NO!

The issue, to me, is that the mindset for an environment where the barriers are muddied, roles are changed and challenged and our experience is limited, is one of fear. Fear of imposing rules, making certain elements compulsory seems to prevail. Going back to the Edudemic post that sparked both this and Part 1, there are clear rules and structure set in place for what must happen and by when. This makes the learning exercise work in that example. Further, in some instances, insisting that learners do a particular thing should not be shied  away from. For example, if you are insisting on using a particular social media tool for your course then insist students join and use it as long as you make it clear from the start, what really is the problem? How they use it is their choice, for instance they may choose to have an avatar, a name which hides their identity, etc, if the issue is that they don’t really want to be posting their details on a social networking site.

As for freedom and independence, well this is the massive issue of control. For education to make the leaps and bounds needed to really change current practices wholesale, then control needs to be considered. Control of students’ learning, control of student interactions, control of teaching and control of assessment. Even with the rules and compulsions in place, education needs to be willing to relinquish control in all these areas in so many different ways. Set up the environments, promote the networks and set up structures (with clearly defined rules) and let learning happen. Assessment should largely come in the learning, not separate. This can happen with a focus on reflection, such as making students blog and eportfolio their developments and share, peer assess, etc etc

When educators fight the natural instincts to control learning, freedom and independence begin to flourish in learning so long as there is scaffolding, skillful manipulation and involvement in the learning by ALL parties. Change the environment both physically and mentally.

I was just reading the very insightful and useful tips in this edudemic post  when I was reminded of the continual musings I have over decisions that have to be made in education around compulsion, rules, choice, freedom and independence.

This whole area is, in my experience, a contentious issue and it seems to me that the decisions become even harder to make when:

• looking to transform education into a student centred, experience where independent study is at the heart of learning
• moving to online and/or blended approach
• learning and assessment becomes more of a social experience

I would even go so far as to say that the issues around compulsion, rules, choice, freedom and independence are some of the biggest stumbling blocks for education reform.

In a traditional talk and chalk teaching model, students sit in rows facing the front, delivery is by the ‘dictator’ and content is revealed at the pace and choosing of this ‘controller’ – the teacher. Learning in this environment, usually involves listening, some reading, with very much a drill and practice mentality until one gets something right.  I am quite sure my description here has painted a picture to many people that is crystal clear. Many of us know what that looks like, what it feels like and how it operates. Indeed, this familiarity is so great that we most likely know the rules of this environment and the lack of freedom and independence that usually goes along with it. The decisions referred to at the outset are relatively short and simple to figure out.

Yet, if we attempt any one, any combination or all of the above (wouldn’t that be lovely!?!), then the decisions  around compulsion, rules, choice, freedom and independence are not so easy to make. Rules around when, how and what should happen become more difficult for a variety of reasons and yes a lack of longevity with these ways of working is one of them. That has to be quite unsettling for some educators, hasn’t it really? But, can we really let that stand in our way and undermine the benefits of making such necessary changes?

to be continued…………….

It is quite clear and not in the least bit surprising to lots of people I am connected with to suggest that a body of educators want and are indeed, demanding significant changes in education at all levels, in many different ways. I make it no secret that I am one of them and any reader of this blog, my tweets and who has seen me present, will know that I am willing to explore whatever means possible to seek solutions to the complexities of education reform.

One of these complexities that has been weighing heavy on my mind recently is the question as to whether we should be searching for variety in many areas of these changes or does that diversity mean that uniformity goes out of the window and what effect does that have on learners and learning? In other words, is it possible to gives a smorgasbord of approaches to learning yet have these all at the highest quality we strive for as passionate educators?

If I think of some of the work I am involved in at the moment in my ‘day’ job and the sometimes complicated nature of making online learning a success, then these are big questions. And when I think of the bigger picture, these questions’ significance do not diminish. As the title of this post suggests, there will always be the answer of same same but different where we are looking for a balance of variety and consistency and it is how that balance occurs where we see the quality in the progress we make. Or perhaps this famous Thai phrase- same same…. – is being interpreted incorrectly and we should not concern ourselves with questions of variety or of consistency but imagine and shape something different.

Following on from my last post on multimedia, I think it is worth looking more closely at what extensive use of ‘true’ multimedia is trying to achieve. Without doubt, there are the arguments for greater attraction with higher quality materials, appeal to a variety of senses and the engagement of learners with various learning styles to name but a few, but I think a step further into this area should uncover Interaction as the Golden Key.

Inventive, creative and well-designed multimedia should not only look to push out any confines of the typical multimedia strands but look to interact.

Why?

Interaction is an essential element of communication and of interpretation. Some would say it is at the very heart of how many humans learn given that it involves observation, feedback and hence opportunities to develop. Simple everyday conversations can mean so much and they are just, essentially, interaction. Yet, they are at the very core of how we function and how we understand what is needed to get things done, make people and ourselves happy.

If it is considered that interaction is to do something which has an effect on another or others then creating learning opportunities for students then surely educators need to critique everything they do with an eye to maximising the interactive nature of what they are creating for their learners.

I have thought for a long time that there is so much more educators could be doing to utilise what is available under the umbrella of multimedia. I appreciate that creative things often take longer than a box standard write up or a short presentation but not always and if they do, surely the impact they make will be worth it. But maybe that’s the issue here… a considerable number of people in education don’t think that being creative when explaining things is worth it or is that we don’t understand what the true meaning of multimedia really is.

But what is the true meaning of multimedia? Well, to my mind you can decipher it as many in education do with a few images, maybe a sound or even a little video added  from YouTube to your PowerPoint. We can do better than that though surely can’t we? Or a better way of convincing people might be to ask the questions: Don’t our students deserve better than that? AND How do you expect an audience to take notice of your feeble, dull ‘just-multi’ media when they can marvel at RSA , Why Music Matters  , [insert your own favourites here]?

To look at what multimedia actually means, I have just looked it up and Google tells me right at the top of the page:

That really doesn’t help any argument to suggest that multimedia is really more than most educators think it is. So, in digging deeper on good ole’ Wikipedia I find their explanation refers to combinations and that really is the crux of this matter in many ways. How many variations, elements and ways can be combined to really deliver content?

Surely, the massive upheaval occurring in print media tells us that text is only one element of a myriad of mediums that should be offered to present content. Likewise, images have their limits. Although they are hardly new, have such simple approaches as Augmented Reality using Zooburst , stop start animation using something like MonkeyJam , performing little tricks such as this or mimicking the work of CommonCraft have not been used to the fullest yet.

From time to time I will cite Seth Godin in blog posts and I make no excuses for that as he is a constant inspiration to me in trying to understand some of the complexities of working in a connected world amongst other things. His recent post, What’s now? really stood out as a message for education, in my opinion.

To summarise Seth’s message in this post, he talks about the unpredictable nature of computers in the ‘bad old days’ of tape loading and pedestrian computer consoles  but then compares this with how reliable technology is today. He then concludes with the following message:

“If you’ve been waiting for the next big thing before you dive in, it’s here.

No longer do we need to wonder, “what’s next?” No, I think it’s better to take a long look at, “what’s now?” “

Genius in it’s simplicity, this seems like something educators could do with trying on for size. Imagine if the senior management in your school, the Education Authority you work under, the Higher Education institute you work for, came out with a version of this statement. What could that lead to?

I believe it would stop the feet dragging in education when it comes to integration of technology. There would be trust in what is available, a desire to open up to the possibilities that being connected to the wealth of possibilities current technology offers. There would be a substantial shift in mentality, to how a lot of major businesses perceive technology: as a significant tool in their design, organisation, planning, operations and development.

What an exciting place this would be!

Maybe, some school could even be brave enough to really embrace this idea and change their motto so it read:

Learning and Technology, what’s now?

I would love to see that on my children’s school uniform.

I sat at the beginning of ‘just another’ day at work this morning when I noticed tweets that when unpacked led to the news of Chris Allen’s (known to the Twitter world as @infernaldepart) death. I was devastated, upset in so many ways.

Never being one to say ‘sorry’ when I experience death of those I know or gush over how marvellous they were when it is clear exaggeration, I want to say so much but I want it to sound right. I want this to be a tribute but a ‘real’ one, about time I had with Chris although brief and how I felt about him and have always thought of him. Here goes:

Chris, our paths crossed because of trying to teach IT in the ‘right way’. We shared a massive sense of justice and responsibility to give students under our care, an experience when studying our subject. You enthused about wanting things you taught to matter, sharing yourself and involving your students in technology and bringing their personalities  to the mix. I never saw you teach but I am pretty sure you achieved so much of this. I bloody hope you did mate.

We shared tweets at first, various online conversations later and this led to Skype calls. You always seemed to be on the other end of the line on your iPhone banging pots and pans about. I dont think you ever sat still for too long except the ones late at night when we set the world of education to rights each with our own glass of wine. Cheers dude.

You could handle my ranting, over-the-top passion and you always offered a balanced view. You knew where I was coming from and you handled educational frustations/impatience so much better than I did.

When we worked together in York, I felt like I had known you for ages and I knew I had to have you present for me in Walsall, work with me and take the massive steps into the unknown I was taking at the time. Without you there in Walsall, I would have missed so much, the event would have been much weaker and I would have found it so much harder to pull everything together. From our musings on a couch in the lobby of a budget hotel in Walsall to the activities throughout the day, I felt like I had someone watching my back. Sounds cliched I know but to me, when you click….you really do click.

We never did work together in person again after that but we still shared those Skype calls and I know at times you found things hard but you really did give so much. I felt your warmth and generosity. I never met your son but I could feel your total love for him every time you spoke about him (which was quite a lot!!). I hope after the tears dry up for him, he remembers that.

I don’t know what else to say now. I wish you had have come down to my house, as we tried to arrange, before I emigrated and it would have been so good to walk on the beach here in Australia with you and your son.

I miss you already mate. See ya.

Nick

I really liked reading the comments on this blog post as they are very succinct and ring true with a lot of my beliefs and experience in many areas of education. Yet, it is this final statement on that post that keeps bouncing round my brain:

When will we stop talking about this and start taking apart an outdated, irrelevant system?

I follow @mesterman on Twitter and having had the pleasure of spending time with Matt face-to-face, then he really has a lot of valuable insight into education but it is in his blogging exploits where he is taking readers on the journey through his new position at a new school, that excites me immensely. In a recent post he talked about the long game and it is very interesting to see the long term approach, the careful planning he and his school are taking in improving teaching and learning at their school.

Yet, how does that sit with Tania’s (@taniatorikova) blog post and the quote mentioned above?

Is there too much talk and not enough doing when it comes to education reform?

Should we be moving slowly or quickly when we are making significant changes to education provision?

And, does moving quickly, making drastic changes and pushing things forward with haste, undermine the quality of the long game?