A global perspective on building opportunities for all students: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Carmel McNaught

A global perspective on building

• pportunities for all students:
• pportunities for all students:

Experiences in Africa, Australia & Hong Kong

Creative commons license

1

2

Role of a keynote speech

 to stir things up … which i ht t might overturn ideas & beliefs  t l  to explore some underlying assumptions & assumptions & concepts

http://londoncoder.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/iceberg.jpg

3

Essence and detail Essence and detail …

 You will see & hear different things in this talk d di T&L b li f d depending on your T&L beliefs and your experience.  Core principles are  Core principles are transferrable.  Details? Maybe or maybe  Details? Maybe or maybe not …

http://tinyurl.com/2flmbwh

4

Outline

 A potted personal history across 4 phases  Spatial and temporal contexts  Lessons learnt on the journey  Phase 5: ??  First, let’s begin with a little social media … First, let s begin with a little social media …

5

Shifts in geographical cultures

Phase 1 Phase 1 Phase 2

6

Shifts in disciplinary cultures

Shifts in geographical cultures

Phase 3 Phase 4

http://www.slhs.us/home/180002483/1800 02483/images/P1020594 JPG 02483/images/P1020594.JPG

7

Shifts in disciplinary cultures

Socio-political contextual factors Socio political contextual factors

 Ph 1 A t li i th 1970 (Vi t  Phase 1: Australia in the 1970s (Vietnam war, Labour government, end of ‘white Australia’)  Phase 2: Africa in the late 1970s/ 1980s (war  Phase 2: Africa in the late 1970s/ 1980s (war, apartheid, democracy, AIDS)  Phase 3: Australia in the 1990s (indigenous  Phase 3: Australia in the 1990s (indigenous rights, return of Liberal government, gun control)  Phase 4: Hong Kong in the 21st century  Phase 4: Hong Kong in the 21st century (relationship to Mainland China, economy, SARS)

8

Are these shifts transitions or dislocations?

L ? E li h Z l C t Language? English, Zulu, Cantonese …  Sapir-Whorf (linguistic relativity) or Chomsky (universal grammar)? (universal grammar)?  My view: ‘Truth’ resides in the tension between

• pposing poles
• pposing poles

9

http://discoveringmandarin.blogspot.com/2009/07/pan-ku-pan-gu-vs-lao-tzu-chinese.html

Examples from Zulu/ English

English term Zulu definition Literal translation Comments ammonia umuthi ongumoya

• xutshwe ngamanzi
• nephunga elihlabayo;

NH poison that is air mixed with water with smell that is piercing A functional rather than structural definition NH3 compound inhlanganisela yazithako zemvelo ezimbili the intermixing of mixtures

• f nature which are two

Confusion between compounds and mixtures. The use of ‘nature’ and ‘two’. density ukuminyana; isikalo sesisindo nomthamo the concentrate; the measure of mass and volume No indication of ratio at all energy amandla okwenza umsebenzi power to do work No distinction between ‘power’ and ‘energy’ umsebenzi power and energy ultra-sound umsindo

• ngabekezekeleki ngenxa

yobukhulu noise not tolerated because

• f loudness

Confusion between loudness and frequency

McNaught (1992)

10

http://citizenwire.com/2010/04/12/ctw2099_054802.php

Remember that most of us are … Remember that most of us are …

 WEIRD

11

Remember that most of us are … Remember that most of us are …

 WEIRD  Our cultural background is …

 Western Educated Industrialized, Rich, Democratic

Image extracted from Spinney (2010), p. 42

12

Three-stage conceptual change model

DATA

1 E id f th d f h

DATA

• 1. Evidence of the need for change
• 2. Confronting/ negotiating the situation

g g g

• 3. Reconstruction of a new approach

PEOPLE

E L i (1952) E.g. Lewin (1952); Nussbaum & Novick (1982)

Examples from Chinese(s)/ English Examples from Chinese(s)/ English

 Singular/ plural  Prepositions  Tense (esp. conditional)  Passive vs active sentences

14

How important are these differences p for learning?

 C iti l d?  Cognitive load?  Motivation aspects? G l i i h i ?  Greater or lesser insights into nuance?  How does diversity in a class influence t ?

• utcomes?

 What about classroom interactions?

15

Is it such

Thanks to Clayton R Wright

a shift?

16

http://cdn3.ioffer.com/img/item/140/405/147/ViRp.jpg http://school20.ning.com/photo/595650:Photo:4821?context=latest

But what

Thanks to Clayton R Wright

about this?

http://www.slhs.us/home/180002483/1800 02483/images/P1020594.JPG

17

http://cdn3.ioffer.com/img/item/140/405/147/ViRp.jpg http://www.mcg.edu/itss/networking/images/student- at-computer.jpg

Information access The passive Constructive dialogue p Chinese student? Constructive dialogue

 How eLearning strategies are being used at

student?

g g g

• present. Student data from 21 university courses

in HK. ~600+ q’aires.

Kember, McNaught, Chong, Lam, & Cheng (2010)

18

, g ( )

Design of website

19

CFA models Learning

• utcomes

Implications for the meaning of digital literacy

Active eLearning eLearning

SEM model

20

Information access Constructive dialogue Constructive dialogue

 Students considered that using features which Students considered that using features which promote constructive dialogue and interactive learning activities encourages a deep approach to learning, the development of communication skills and enhanced understanding of content.

21

We now use the term ‘l i d i ’ ‘learning designs’

Student learning g needs Aims/ desired

CUHK T&L policy

reflection desired learning

• utcomes

Content/ fundamental concepts Learning activities Feedback for evaluation Assessment

• f learning

22

Actual learning

• utcomes

Universal decision questions

Student learning needs Aims/ desired learning

• utcomes

Universal decision questions

 Who are my students?

• utcomes

Content/ fundamental concepts Learning activities Feedback for evaluation

 Who are my students?  Why am I teaching this … ?  Which content ? In what form ? How much ?

Assessment Actual learning

• utcomes

 Which content ? In what form ? How much ? Who finds it ?  Relationship between online and F2F ? Relationship between online and F2F ?  Getting feedback to Ss on their learning ?  Getting feedback to Ts on Ss’ learning ? g g  Is this learning going to last ?  Can I do this better ?

23

These ideas fit with l t di T&L d l long-standing T&L models

 E.g. Laurillard’s (1993, 2002) conversational model

– between student(s) and teacher(s) – between the students – about the content focused on concepts/ – focused on concepts/ conceptions – about tasks/ assessments – about artifacts produced – etc.

24

http://dumais.us/newtown/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/conversation.jpg

Diagnostic Media-enriched explanations - produced by teachers

• r students

Activities, e.g. discussions, quizzes, games, simulations, debates, roleplays, etc.

Discussion Teacher's conceptual knowledge Student's conceptual knowledge

Diagnostic testing/ info. on learning prefs A range of communication & collaboration

• pportunities with other

Reflection

• n student

Reflection

• n

knowledge knowledge Revision

• f learning

Revision of personal

Peer reviews, tests exams

• pportunities with other

students

Student's actions work interactions Teacher's strategies ideas

tests, exams Reflective spaces,

Interaction in/ perception of T&L environment conception of learning design

Reflective spaces, e.g. blogs, ePortfolios Feedback for evaluation Assignments, presentations

25

After Laurillard 1993, 2002

Teachers are individuals with different beliefs & practices

Bain & McNaught (2006) Bain & McNaught (2006)

22 cases of Australian Australian academics using technology- enhanced teaching

26

teaching

BELIEFS C hemistry  O rigin of Knowledge A cademic/ discipline 2 3 4 Student/ collaboration discipline collaboration  Pedagogical Philosophy Instructivist 2 3 4 C

• nstructivist

 Type of Un derstanding K nowing more 2 3 4 K nowing differently R l f Di i I id t l 2 3 4 C t l  Role of Dis cussion Incidental 2 3 4 C entral  Accommodation of Students’ C

• nceptions

A bsent Pre- emptive C

• nversational-

A ssimilative C

• nversational-

A ccommodative  C urriculum Progression Linear/ H ierarchical Jigsaw Spiral  C urriculum Fo cus Knowledge + Un derstanding D isciplinary ways

• f knowing

Professional/ Artistic performing PRAC TICES  Task Structure High 2 3 4 Lo w  Interactivity N avigational 2 3 4 Manipulative/ C

• nstructive

 Learning C

• ntrol

Teacher managed 2 3 4 Student managed  Accommodation of Individual Di fferences N

• n- existent

2 3 4 Multifaceted  Metacognitive support Unsupported 2 3 4 Integrated  Learning Process Reproduction 2 3 4 C

• nstruction

 Learning F ramework Structured G uided Facilitated  Learning F

• cus

K nowledge Reasoning Performance

BELIEFS C hemistry A rchitecture  O rigin of Knowledge A cademic/ discipline 2 3 4 Student/ collaboration discipline collaboration  Pedagogical Philosophy Instructivist 2 3 4 C

• nstructivist

 Type of Un derstanding K nowing more 2 3 4 K nowing differently R l f Di i I id t l 2 3 4 C t l  Role of Dis cussion Incidental 2 3 4 C entral  Accommodation of Students’ C

• nceptions

A bsent Pre- emptive C

• nversational-

A ssimilative C

• nversational-

A ccommodative  C urriculum Progression Linear/ H ierarchical Jigsaw Spiral  C urriculum Fo cus Knowledge + Un derstanding D isciplinary ways

• f knowing

Professional/ Artistic performing PRAC TICES  Task Structure High 2 3 4 Lo w  Interactivity N avigational 2 3 4 Manipulative/ C

• nstructive

 Learning C

• ntrol

Teacher managed 2 3 4 Student managed  Accommodation of Individual Di fferences N

• n- existent

2 3 4 Multifaceted  Metacognitive support Unsupported 2 3 4 Integrated  Learning Process Reproduction 2 3 4 C

• nstruction

 Learning F ramework Structured G uided Facilitated  Learning F

• cus

K nowledge Reasoning Performance

BELIEFS C hemistry A rchitecture  O rigin of Knowledge A cademic/ discipline 2 3 4 Student/ collaboration discipline collaboration  Pedagogical Philosophy Instructivist 2 3 4 C

• nstructivist

 Type of Un derstanding K nowing more 2 3 4 K nowing differently R l f Di i I id t l 2 3 4 C t l  Role of Dis cussion Incidental 2 3 4 C entral  Accommodation of Students’ C

• nceptions

A bsent Pre- emptive C

• nversational-

A ssimilative C

• nversational-

A ccommodative  C urriculum Progression Linear/ H ierarchical Jigsaw Spiral  C urriculum Fo cus Knowledge + Un derstanding D isciplinary ways

• f knowing

Professional/ Artistic performing PRAC TICES  Task Structure High 2 3 4 Lo w  Interactivity N avigational 2 3 4 Manipulative/ C

• nstructive

 Learning C

• ntrol

Teacher managed 2 3 4 Student managed  Accommodation of Individual Di fferences N

• n- existent

2 3 4 Multifaceted  Metacognitive support Unsupported 2 3 4 Integrated  Learning Process Reproduction 2 3 4 C

• nstruction

 Learning F ramework Structured G uided Facilitated  Learning F

• cus

K nowledge Reasoning Performance

BELIEFS C hemistry Law A rchitecture  O rigin of Knowledge A cademic/ discipline 2 3 4 Student/ collaboration discipline collaboration  Pedagogical Philosophy Instructivist 2 3 4 C

• nstructivist

 Type of Un derstanding K nowing more 2 3 4 K nowing differently R l f Di i I id t l 2 3 4 C t l  Role of Dis cussion Incidental 2 3 4 C entral  Accommodation of Students’ C

• nceptions

A bsent Pre- emptive C

• nversational-

A ssimilative C

• nversational-

A ccommodative  C urriculum Progression Linear/ H ierarchical Jigsaw Spiral  C urriculum Fo cus Knowledge + Un derstanding D isciplinary ways

• f knowing

Professional/ Artistic performing PRAC TICES  Task Structure High 2 3 4 Lo w  Interactivity N avigational 2 3 4 Manipulative/ C

• nstructive

 Learning C

• ntrol

Teacher managed 2 3 4 Student managed  Accommodation of Individual Di fferences N

• n- existent

2 3 4 Multifaceted  Metacognitive support Unsupported 2 3 4 Integrated  Learning Process Reproduction 2 3 4 C

• nstruction

 Learning F ramework Structured G uided Facilitated  Learning F

• cus

K nowledge Reasoning Performance

2010 Horizon Report: C iti l h ll

 The role of the academy – and the way we prepare students for their future lives is

Critical challenges

prepare students for their future lives – is changing.  New scholarly forms of authoring, publishing, and researching continue to emerge but appropriate metrics for evaluating them increasingly and far too often lag behind.  Digital media literacy continues its rise in importance as a key skill in every discipline and profession.

http://wp.nmc.org/horizon2010/

and profession.  Institutions increasingly focus more narrowly

• n key goals, as a result of shrinking budgets

in the present economic climate in the present economic climate.

31

Johnson, Levine, Smith, & Stone (2010)

21st C Literacies

Phase 5

21 C Literacies

Visual Literacy Cultural Literacy y Network Literacy Global Literacy

21 21ST

ST CENTURY

ENTURY

Computer Literacy

LITERACIES

ITERACIES

Linguistic Literacy Written Literacy Media Librar Media Literacy Library Literacy

After blogs.ubc.ca/dean/files/2009/02/bloom1.gif

Web 3.0 ?

“the smart read-write Mobile Web” interconnected user published content user generated content http://web2.socialcomputingmagazine.com/

2010 …???

Lots happening … H hi ? How can we achieve convergence ?

 New tools  New contexts  New  New

• pportunities

 Ongoing g g principles to guide us on this journey …

34

http://www.parkenet.org/jp/challenges/convergence.jpg

Summary Summary

Themes:  Negotiate educational beliefs in each situation  Focus on the details of learning design  Consider the importance of relevant and authentic tasks that enable learners to develop lif l l i d i biliti lifelong learning and earning capabilities  Accommodate shifting roles of both teachers and learners in a mutual comfort zone learners in a mutual comfort zone  Enjoy the experience!

35

The future is the next generation …

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Children_in_Namibia%281_cropped%29.jpg

January 2011

36

http://www.chinawikipedia.com/chinapeople.html

Thank You Thank You Thank You Thank You

37

 Bain, J. D., & McNaught, C. (2006). How academics use technology in teaching and learning: Understanding the relationship between beliefs and practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(2), 99–113.  Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., & Stone, S. (2010). The 2010 Horizon Report. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Texas: The New Media Consortium.  Kember, D., McNaught, C., Chong, F. C. Y., Lam, P., & Cheng, K. F. (2010). Understanding the ways in which design features of educational websites impact upon student learning outcomes in blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55 1183–1192 55, 1183–1192.  Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: a conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.  Lewin, K. (1952). Group decision and social change. In G. E. Swanson, T. M. Newcomb & ( ) ( ) & F. E. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 459–473). New York: Holt.  McNaught, C. (1992). Learning science at the interface between Zulu and English: An

• verview of research issues. The South African Journal of Linguistics, 10(4), 234–239.

 Nussbaum, J. & Novick, S. (1982). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict and Nussbaum, J. & Novick, S. (1982). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict and accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy. Instructional Science, 11, 183– 200.  Spinney, L. (2010, 13 November). Who’s the oddball? New Scientist, No. 2786, 40–43.

38