Some visuals for light relief

Literacy fun sites. stbenedictscollege.co.uk
Image Retrieved from
https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=707&q=literacy&oq=literacy&gs_l=img.3..0l10.2177.3290.0.4197.8.8.0.0.0.0.422.1752.2j1j3j1j1.8.0...0.0...1ac.1.12.img.1UBvFtL0P0g




 


Part 1: Literacy and the 9 Essential Skills. Image retrieved from
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5163855836867982725#editor/target=post;postID=3655364051292239079

Personal philosophy

  My online teaching philosophy is evolving and becoming a more refined articulation of what it means to be a literacy and numeracy teacher in the 21^st century.  I have up until now subscribed primarily to cognitive (mental processing from short to long-term memory) and behavioural (stimulus and response) theories of learning, and believe that the learner constructs his or her own learning from prior knowledge or experience and in a socio-cultural location. The emergence of techno-literacy is bringing a need for new approaches to effective online learning, and, among other theorists, Siemens (2004) proposes a connectivist theory whereby educators need combine existing learning theories with the digital age.    Key beliefs drive my teaching philosophy, online or face to face:

1. Knowing the learners’ learning needs, cultural background, and learning styles
2. Having strong subject knowledge
3. A knowledge of sound pedagogical principles
4. In my ESOL context, being able to combine pedagogical practices from students’ prior learning culture with New Zealand educational practices
5. See literacy as a primarily cognitive practice embedded in a socio-cultural milieu 
6. See education as fluid serving different purposes at different times and being both formal and informal
7. A core value of responsibility ensures I strive to ‘deliver on my promise’
8. A strong work ethic, variously commented on, is a further core value that drives my commitment to value the learners’ needs

Sound educational principles such as Chickering & Gamson (1987)  influential  Seven principles for guiding good educational practice for undergraduate students  and the familiar Bloom’s Taxonomy (Moore & Stanley, 2010) providing a paradigm of thinking levels from knowing facts to higher order abstractions I believe are essential understandings for a teacher, but that these need to be at the foundation of online teaching.  Kalat (2007; cited in Anderson, 2008, p. 22) believes that online course designers need to ensure that the appropriate cognitive framework is contained in the design. 

Much research points to the need for teachers to be aware of how to best utilize the new technologies.  Learning materials need to be designed to engage the learner and facilitate learning.  Online learning needs to have high validity, i.e. the content needs to be relevant to the learner’s purposes for it, and it needs to be interactive and collaborative (Ring and Mathieux, 2002; ibid p.16). 

Much of my educational practice is based on cognitive psychology (which is situated in a socio-cultural context) and I believe that instructors need to implement strategies that provide for learners to transfer new information to long-term storage.   In an online environment, this means attending to technical issues and ensuring that critical information is highlighted to ensure that the learners are constructing new memories to related knowledge (Stoyanova & Kommers; 2002; ibid).

For myself, I endeavour to utilize as many modes as possible to facilitate cognitive processing simply because as many pathways as possible to the brain facilitate learning (Da Sousa, 2005;  Anderson, 2005, p.28) and cognitive strategies, I personally believe, drive all other theories.  The learner processes information cognitively and this cognition is located in a social and cultural environment (Vygotsky) The learner then constructs a schema, or cognitive mental map, theorized Jean Piaget in the 1950s (Psychologists and their theories, 2005, p. 353).

The emergence of techno-literacy is bringing a need for new approaches to effective online learning, and, among other theorists, Siemens (2004) proposes a connectivist theory whereby educators need  to combine existing learning theories with the digital age.  Connectivism  (George Siemens, 2004) holds that behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism are limiting in today’s digital age.  He believes that information flows from the individual, out to networks, to organizations and institutions and feeds back again. Critics of this theory argue that it is not a theory of learning as the networks the learner navigates may not be structured with any learning intent (Why connectivism is not a learning theory, 2011, n.a.) but that it is a theory of education.  Ally (2008; cited in Anderson, 2008, p. 37) proposes a four stage model for online education:  learner preparation, learner activities, learner interaction and learner transfer; these are all consistent with Gardener’s guiding principles.

Kanuka (2008) believes that we need to view the theories and technologies philosophically.  She notes that the pervasiveness of e-learning has brought tensions with it but that “philosophy inspires our activities and gives direction to our practices … we can articulate our own personal philosophy” (p.83).  She quotes Dahlberg (2003) who believes we have a tendency to align with one of three orientations, namely uses determinism, that sees technological artifacts for instrumental purposes;  technological determinism, which focuses on the forms and effects these artifacts have on society;  and social determinism which believes that societies and cultures influence these artifacts.  I would tend to subscribe mostly to a social determinism, because all learning is in a social practice and all cognition is social cognition and that “the brain is a social information processing organ” (Cacioppo & Berntson, editors, 2005).

The net generation concerns more with the activities, i.e. the uses, than the technology.  This view sees the technology as neutral, and a natural progression of logic is to take a retrograde view of all technology used for written symbols and see e-technology as one more evolving step (Lankshear, Snyder & Green, 2000).

Social determinism sees technology integrated into the education systems and believe that social forces shape the landscape of technological artefacts (Dahlberg, 2004; cited in Kanuka, 2008)   Connectivism is not inconsistent with this thought.

The liberal/perennial forms the basis of western education and is based in the Socratic tradition of rhetoric, question and evolving intellectual and moral value. This is woven into the fabric of our education system.

In conclusion, a personally articulated philosophy, a knowledge of sound pedagogy and androgogy, a familiarity with the tenets of behavioural, cognitive, and constructive theories in their socio-cultural practice needs to guide educators operating in a digital milieu;  the theory of connectivism appears to be one that is evolving and the effects on learners will require further observation in this rapidly evolving digital age.

References 

Ally, M. (2008) Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.) The theory and practice of online learning, 2^nd ed.           Edmonton: AU Press

Cacioppo, J.T. & Berntson, G.G. (2005) (Eds.). Social Neuroscience. New York and Hove: Psychology Press

Kanuka, H. (2008).  Understanding e-learning technologies-in-practice through philosophies-in-practice. In T. Anderson (Ed.) The theory and practice of online learning, 2^nd ed. Edmonton: AU Press

Krapp, K. (Ed.) (2005). Psychologists and their theories for students, Vol. 2 L-Z.  MI: Thomson Gale  
                             
Lankshear, C., Snyder, I. & Green, B. (2000). Teachers and technoliteracy. Managing literacy, technology and learning in schools. NSW: Allen & Unwin

7 Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, University of South Carolina Center for Teaching Excellence. Retrieved 2013 April 28 from www.sc.edu/cte/guide/undergraduateducation/index.shtml

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, (2003). Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory. Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=26925&URL_DO=DO_TOPI...

Why connectivism is not a learning theory (n.a.). Retrieved from http://apointofcontact.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/why-connectivism-is-not-a-learning-theory/

Q: What is the most effective e-learning medium for the majority of students?

 Hutchinson, Tin & Cao (2011) point out that the net generation is not about technology, but rather about the activities the technology provides (Roberts, 2005; cited in Anderson, editor, 2011, p.203).  Technology simply supports the learning activity and can be one of the many available for a specific learning outcome, and that today’s learners have a ‘multi media literacy’ approach (Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005; ibid, p.204). 

Hutchinson, Tin & Cao (2011) identify mobile learning as the emergent technology, connecting with a wide range of users with the universal ability to share and learn while breaking through barriers of age, gender, social class, locality, ability or disability (ibid, p.203).

They define mobile technologies as mobile phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), smartphones (integrated telephone, computing and communication devices) and portable media players such as MP3 players and iPods;  all of which have become interwoven into our social, work and learning environments.

They note that the net generation are technically able, like multi-tasking, and prefer autonomy of learning (Tapscott, 1998; ibid, p.203).  They are more comfortable with teamwork, in visual environments, crave interactivity and prefer activity to reflection.  The baby boomer generation, they observe, was educated in an industrial age model (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; ibid).  Carlson (2005; ibid) observe that this demographic is impatient, creative, expect customizing and immediacy, self-focused and reliant on an array of portable of devices.

Fabio Sergio, a leader of innovative programs for international companies,notes in “10 Ways that mobile learning will revolutionize education” (n.d.) that m-learning, which he refers to as both mobile learning and me learning is the tool that is transforming education due to its ubiquitous use, weaving of informal and formal learning together and breaking down time barriers.

He sees m-learning as a means of complementing existing educational traditions and cites the model MIT and Harvard have combined to offer free online courses via edX, a non-profit organization.  He points out that m-learning can empower the young to teach both peers and adults and provide in the process a young person’s perspective. 

While researchers are citing the benefits of portability, flexibility, synchronous and asynchronous provision, others do point out certain drawbacks.  Riva & Villani, 2005: cited in Anderson, editor, 200   p.205) observe that the screen is small and therefore not suited to everyone’s eyesight, and storage capacity is low.

Clyde (2004; ibid, p.203) believes it is necessary to identify the forms of learning that m-learning is most suited for, the potential students who need it and the best strategies for delivering this mobile education.  Wagner and Wilson (2005; ibid, p.204) note that with all the benefits of its universal use, it will best advantage those who have digital communication skills.  The implication for teachers is to be aware of this when utilizing such a medium and to have an alternative mode of delivery.

The conclusions are that m-learning has the capacity to revolutionize education with its portability, affordability, near universal use, and ability to reach across boundaries of time and location, and across cultural and social classes.  It does have some physical limitations such as a small screen and small key pad.

The demographic most suited to its use may well be Generation Y, or the net generation, given their learning characteristics.  

It may be that m-learning could be the technology that will benefit a majority but this to be said with much caution, as technology is only a vehicle and is only one of many successive technologies and that “teachers need to adopt a more flexible and expansive view of literacy …” (Lankshear, et al. 2000, p. 26) and the more pertinent issues are the learner’s intent, the situated social practice, and the philosophy of the instructor.

References

Hutchison, M., Tin, T. & Cao, Y. (2008). “In-your-pocket” and “On-the-fly:” Meeting the needs of today’s new generation of online learners with mobile learning technology.  In T. Anderson, (2008).  The theory and practice of online learning, 2nd ed.  Edmonton:  AU Press

Lankshear, C., Snyder, I. & Green, B. (2000). Teachers and technoliteracy. Managing literacy, technology and learning in schools.  NSW: Allen & Unwin

Connectivism and Technology

This three-minute clip gives some useful data, even though it is now four years old, about young people's use of social media, e.g. nearly 70% are content creators not just consumers.  They spend about 11,000 hours in school but 15,000 hours on social media.   For me, it's further impetus for utilizing these mediums more and more.

Source
pduresky (2009, October 25) Connectivism and Technology

[Video file] Retrieved from

http://youtu.be/BjOv_ssTQDY

How can teachers determine whether their students are actually learning in an e-learning environment besides purely assessment based acivities?

In response to Averill's question

Prineas and Cini (2011) argue that online education and assessment of learning outcomes are strongly connected, but that the semantic environment may markedly improve assessment and its ability to improve teaching and learning.

The Learning Outcomes Assessment (LOA) movement and online learning in higher education emerged at approximately the same time in the mid 1980s, but these are just now beginning to intersect. The authors note five key factors:

1. Educators still need a sophisticated understanding of e-learning’s power and associated technologies to alter how we perceive and design LOA programs
2. Data mining from course management systems indicates patterns of student behavior which can be used for timely intervention
3. With new technologies educators can design and assess programs that mimic the way learners learn
4. Instructors require technological expertise
5. Faculty roles will change

Today’s online learning is ubiquitous and multifaceted and the following observations are crucial to ensuring successful student performance.

Data mining

Firstly, they note that online learning systems allow educators to monitor students individually and provide timely feedback.  These ‘data analytics’ as Prineas and Cini (2011) term them guide improvement.   Secondly, the authors note that online programs offering asynchronous mastery learning provide more respect for differing background knowledge and learning styles, affording students flexibility with completion time, but still retaining the same defined learning outcomes.  Kulik, Kulik & Bangert-Drowns, 1990, cited in Prineas & Cini (2011) observe that faculties need to invest much time implementing an effective course to utilize this method.

To further ensure effective learning outcomes, static activities such as readings need to be designed with interactive tasks and with embedded assessments, individually, or in collaboration with peers and/or an instructor.  Once again, the monitoring and assistance to students is the key to effective learning.

Mimicking the way learners learn

The Seven Principles of Good Practice for Undergraduate Education written by Chickering and Gamson in 1987 (ibid) has guided good pedagogy since.  An overview of the seven principles are: contact between students and faculty; reciprocity and cooperation among students; active learning; prompt feedback; time on task; high expectations and respect for diverse talents and ways of learning.    The authors note that traditionally assessment was often performed by the same individual who designed a program, delivered the content, counseled and assessed, but that with online education, assessment is now a distinct function of faculty and can be performed more thoroughly; this unbundled approach being more advantageous to the learner. They believe that online courses need to be framed in good educational practice.

Instructors’ technological expertise

In support of the above, Paechter et al. (2009) studied students’ general expectations and experiences of an e-learning course including the important characteristics of the course, the learning outcomes and satisfaction with the course. They discovered that students’ own learning goals and the instructor’s didactic expertise led to greater learning.  The researchers noted that many students believed that many instructors are not facile with the implementation of e-learning.  This is consistent with findings by Bonk (2006) who argues that e-learning is facing a “perfect e-storm” connecting pedagogy, technology and learners’ needs, and notes that instructors’ competence in online teaching is critical to the quality of online education. He also observed in one study a gap that existed in instructors’ professed and actual online practices, with fewer than 40% actually using the interactive, creative, analytic practices they professed.

Palloff & Pratt (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007) also stress the importance of instructors being skilled in facilitating online instruction and quote, among other competencies, “Attend professional development workshops that will review learning theories and continually develop facilitator skills” (Davidson, 2006; cited in Palloff & Praff, 2007).   Derrick (2003; ibid)  stresses the view that engagement with the online community is the pathway to success and that learner competence increases;  the best five practices are changing the balance of power; changing the function of the content; instructor’s role needs to change, as does the learning responsibility and the assessment processes.

Changing roles of faculty

An individual instructor will no longer be working independently and faculties will be transformed and that group efforts will provide the best teaching for the students.    The porosity of the online classroom walls with other educational staff providing teaching input will continually improve the learning experience of the students (Neely & Tucker, 2010; cited in Prineas & Cini, 2011).

Conclusion

The conclusions are that, for educators to best determine whether their students are actually learning in an on-line environment, thinking needs a turnaround from the traditional orientation of teacher being an instructor who imparts knowledge to waiting students and makes summative assessments of their competencies, to a technically facile instructor who utilizes educational technology combined with sound learning practice, i.e. a model that recognizes the best interventions for student performance.   Such a structural framework is essential for effective assessment.

References

Bonk, C. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in higher education: the survey says …Retrieved April 15, 2013 from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/future-online-teaching-and-learning-higher education

Paechter, M., et al. Students’ expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Computers & Education (2009), doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.005

Palloff, R. & Pratt, K. (2007) Building virtual communities:  techniques that work. University of Wisconsin: 23^rd Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning

Prineas, M. & Cini, M. (2010). Assessing learning in online education: the role of technology in improving student outcomes. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. Occasional Paper #12

7 Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, University of South Carolina Center for Teaching Excellence. Retrieved 2013 April 28 from www.sc.edu/cte/guide/undergraduateducation/index.shtml

Notetaking in the digital classroom: A blended learning approach

In this article, the authors compare students’ use of traditional written notetaking in lectures with the use of digital devices such as recording pens, laptops,  and recorders.  He notes that the average student writes .3 or .4 words per second but can type at 2 or 3 words per second.   He observes that 66.5% of students do not have any structure to their notetaking or any knowledge of effective notetaking systems.   The authors quote research from the University of Washington (n.d.) which notes the cognitive value of written notetaking.  While listening only, the brain is not sorting information which increases the processing and memory, but if making notes while listening the brain is sorting and this procedure increases learning and memory.   Da Sousa (2001) states that listening only to a lecture results in 5% retention after 24 hours; audio + visual provide 20% retention after 24 hours.

The authors report that in 2010 40% of students prefer a blended approach, but that nevertheless there is a need for teachers to actively teach notetaking skills.   They suggest that, in order for students to gain practice in organizing information, the teacher provide a scaffolded framework with main ideas and spaces for students to write in secondary or supporting information.    The authors outline the convenience of digital notetaking and conclude with the belief that the students gain much by the interactivity and speed, but believe that traditional notetaking skills provide better cognitive value while the brain is dealing with auditory input and committing it to paper.   The practice of the teacher scaffolding notetaking fits with Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) theory, cognitive and constructivist theories.   The authors observe that there are many methods of notetaking but suggest the Cornell method of dividing the page into three zones: a cue area, a summaries area and a follow up area.

The site, www.teachthought.com, offers a variety of progressive articles for 21^st century teaching and learning and claim that their mantra is simple:  Keep learning.   While not all articles give an author, the content appears to be written by informed educators and thinkers.  The writing style tends to be informal and referencing is not according to academic conventions;  therefore the reader may make his/her own critical judgment.

References

Da Sousa, D. (2001). How the brain learns (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks, California:  Corwin Press, Inc.

Notetaking in the digital classroom:  A blended learning approach (2013, January 9).  Retrieved from www.teachthought.com

The Tuesday Program

I recommend this program for inclusion in a variety of courses.  It consists of 7 sessions of about 10-minutes each focusing on interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, and with accompanying downloadable worksheets.  The program has been developed by psychologists from New Zealand, Australia and North America who recognize the power of the affective domain in learning.  Interpersonal and intrapersonal skills form two of the seven multiple intelligences proposed by Gardner, (1983, 1991; cited in How people learn, 2000).  The program developers believe that if an individual is happy, they will achieve more effectively academically and in general.  I show the program every Tuesday in an EAP course and have discussed with the students the purposes of the course, which in our case are subject content and linguistic skills.  The students take home a worksheet with the following day’s topic and vocabulary to preview as many Chinese students (and in my experience other international students) value being prepared for the following day’s lesson, and feel more secure answering questions when they already understand the material (Brick, 1991).  The lecture is used for traditional notetaking practice, with notetaking organizers already in place.  A nominated student is responsible for recording the vocabulary:  pronunciation, meaning, word class, collocates, and usage (Nation, 2005) and will present this vocabulary in Friday’s revision class.  Each day a student has responsibility for that day’s vocabulary because teaching others results in 90% retention and distributed learning facilitates transfer to long-term memory (Da Sousa, 2001).   The content lends itself to discussion of perspectives and values as the program has been developed by western psychologists from low-context cultures but I am using the content with students from high-context cultures.   The end of the 7 programs may be the ideal time to set a discussion essay and gain more insight into the students’ view of the program.  The 7 topics include:

  

   1. Discovering and using your Strengths
   2. Developing a Growth Mindset 
   3. Clarifying your Purpose and Values by thinking about what's meaningful for you 
   4. Thinking about and being Grateful more often
   5. Communicating more effectively in your relationships
   6. Utilising Relaxation Techniques
   7. Being more Mindful

References

Brick, J. (1991). China, A handbook in intercultural communication. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University

Da Sousa, D. (2001). How the brain learns (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks, California:  

Corwin Press, Inc.

Nation, P. (2005).  Teaching Vocabulary.  Asian EFL Journal. Retrieved from http://asian_eft_journal.com/sept_05_pdf

The Tuesday Program (n.d.) Retrieved from www.thetuesdayprogram.com