Devil in the detail

So psychologist Guy Claxton believes that erasers are an instrument of the devil. I can understand why he thinks so. After all, erasers (or to use a term that Americans titter over - rubbers), cover up a multitude of sins. Children can quite easily work their way through a problem, erasing their mistakes as they go, and end up with a seemingly perfect piece of work. Claxton believes that erasers 'create a culture of shame about error' and believes it promotes dishonesty. OK, so this very much sounds like a storm in a teacup and a seemingly trivial battle to fight when there are much more important areas of concern to engage with in education. And yet, some would argue that Claxton has made an important point. Students can, and should, learn through their errors, and sometimes, showing a full working of a problem complete with errors, has a certain pedagogical power. Should errors be covered up? Students should sometimes be given permission to fail, because in so doing they learn how to do something better the next time. I wrote about this some months ago when I bemoaned the fact that only children's perfect pieces of art are seen on display in school reception areas. Little Sarah's picture looks wonderful, but you don't get to see the five previous, crap attempts she made to paint that beautiful swan. The school celebrates the product of her learning, but conveniently hides the messy process.

But if we start banning erasers from schools, what then do we do with computers? Will we need to remove the delete and backspace keys on all the keyboards in the ICT Suite? Do we need to deprive students of the provisionality that all wordprocessors offer? There would be Hell to pay if we did. After all, the ability to continually iterate versions of text or image is part of the creative process. Even better if each version can be preserved to be shown as a process of discovery or creativity that is equally valued alongside the finished product.

Clearly it is nonsense to ban any technology, even simple tools such as erasers, just because they seem to pose some threat to authentic learning. The product is important but so is the process, so why can't both be celebrated equally, and the technologies that brought our students to the point of success not acknowledged? Erasers, just like pencils, computers, whiteboards, sugar paper and pinboards, all have a role to play in the education of our students. The best teachers know that each resource should be used wisely for specific purposes, and none should be overused. There are often simple solutions to the complex problems academics raise. So for now, let's not ban the eraser, but if you insist, perhaps you should ask your students to work their problems through in indelible ink? The devil is in the detail.

Photo by Alex Morfin on Wikimedia Commons


Devil in the detail by Steve Wheeler was written in Liberec, Czech Republic and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Meet Learner 2.0

I presented a keynote speech in Brisbane for EduTech Australia where the theme for my talk was 'Meet Learner 2.0'. I wanted my audience of mainly higher education teachers to think about the cohort of students that is now coming through the doors of universities. Generally they are young people who have no memory of the last century (the one we were all brought up and educated in), and have been immersed in technology their entire lives. They are younger than the Internet and mobile phones, and they don't recall a time when there was no Google or Facebook. They are residents in the digital age and they carry their connection with them wherever they go. This results in a number of repercussions for education.

We are witnessing a shift in education that is likely to be profound. It is a shift in the roles of teachers and learners, and it is one that will alter the relationships we are familiar with. The shift is occurring in the responsibility that learners are adopting to learn for themselves. Teachers have long been advised to become 'guides on the side' so that learners can take responsibility. From Socrates through to Dewey, far sighted and progressive philosophers and theorists have consistently argued that students learn better when they lead their own discovery. But very few educators ever took up this challenge, preferring instead to remain 'in control' of the process of education, the expert sage taking centre stage. The advent of digital technology challenges this traditional model of education.

A recent post on the Edutopia site contained the following passage:

When a student asked how something was done, we'd play dumb and say, "I don't know. We should probably look it up." The student would look it up, ask another question, and we'd say, "Hmmm. That's interesting. How can we find that out?" Again, the student would go to the book. After enough of those sessions, our students stopped bothering to ask us for the answers -- they already knew all the behaviors that would lead to understanding.

Although this instance is clearly taken from a school context, the same principle applies to all education. If the student has the means to discover for himself, why give him the answer? Hands off teaching does promote metacognition (knowing about knowing). Discovering for yourself tends to deepen the learning experience, and motivates students to go that extra mile, to find out for themselves what the answer is to that question that has been nagging at them. It cultivates curiosity, and curiosity always leads to further questions... and the cycle starts again.

The general behaviours identified by John K. Waters in an article in Education Trends in 2011 seem to be gathering pace, and spawning offshoots: 'New learners' are more self directed, and they are better equipped to capture information with their digital tools. They tend to be more reliant on the feedback from their peers, and they are more inclined to collaborate with each other. In short, they are networked learners. Most significantly, they are more oriented to becoming the nodes of their own production. This means that they produce significantly more content related to their learning than previous generations. The mobile phone in their pocket ensures that this happens, constantly. Because they generate more content and learn from it, they are better placed to drive their own learning. The teacher, acting as a co-learner or co-investigator can scaffold this learning, and acts as a guide rather than an instructor. Working with Learner 2.0 will be quite a challenge for many teachers, particularly those who are ingrained in the old methods of education. But Learner 2.0 is already in your institution, and the opportunities far outweigh the threats.

Photo by JISC


Meet Learner 2.0 by Steve Wheeler was written in Liberec, Czech Republic and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

#EDENchat Up close and personal

I have written a lot about Personal Learning Environments in the past, especially when they were emerging as a concept, and sounded quite new. There were posts about the Anatomy of PLEs, their functionality, their role as a counterpoint to the institutional Learning Management System, and also their relationship to MOOCs and Connectivism. I attended the first ever Personal Learning Environments conference in Barcelona, about 5 years ago, and spent three glorious days in the sun, learning with others about the merits and challenges of the PLE and how it would 'revolutionise' learning. We were all excited about the potential of PLEs, especially their subversive nature and their inherent informality. PLEs could be created by anyone, using just about any tool or technology, and we later expanded the idea to embrace other elements such as real experiences and people (Personal Learning Networks). Several peer reviewed journal articles (and a special issue in Interactive Learning Environments) also appeared, and countless blog posts were published. Fittingly, the history of the PLE was written through personal experience and experimentation.

Looking back on all of this frenetic activity, we can now see that PLEs, whatever they have evolved into, have become so much a part of the fabric of everyday learning, that they have all but disappeared, at least in terms of our perception of them. People tend rarely to refer to them now. Personal devices and the free and widespread access to social media have amplified the concept of PLEs to the point that they have become ubiquitous, and therefore run of the mill. What is your experience of using PLEs in your own learning? How can the concept be applied to wider issues in education?

The #EDENchat on May 20th explored these questions and many others, and there was free ranging discussion which was challenging, thought provoking and enlightening. The archive for this and all other #EDENchats can be found as Storified records on the EDEN NAP website.

Photo by Jourixia on Deviant Art


Up close and personal by Steve Wheeler was written in Preston, England and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

#GBL - the suspension of reality

"Oh, the places you'll go! There is fun to be done! There are points to be scored. There are games to be won!" - Theodor Geisel (Dr Seuss)

Games based learning is a hot subject right now. Listening to James Paul Gee and Nichola Whitton speaking about video games has me thinking about the impact of games on education. How for example, can we justify the inclusion of computer games in school lessons and what benefits might they accrue for learners? How can games be integrated into the education, and in what ways might learning from games be assessed?

Gee's work focuses on the processes of learning through games playing, and highlights the active control gamers can exert, as well as other benefits including meta-level thinking, identity manipulation and discovering knowledge about oneself. For me, by far the most powerful principle Gee has identified is the psychological moratorium (PM) - an adaptation of a concept originally proposed by psychoanalyst Erik Erikson. For Gee, the PM represents the capability of a game to suspend reality, so that the gamer can go where they wish, be whomever they want to be, and perpetrate acts for which there is no lasting consequence. Putting aside the less desirable outcomes of this principle for one moment, we can see that the suspension of reality can encourage students to take greater risks, pose themselves problems that would otherwise be unrealistic, and explore terrains and ideas that would be virtually inconceivable outside of a video game.

Nichola Whitton's work overlaps considerably with the principles Gee identifies. She presents a 'magic circle' within which all kinds of scenarios are possible within games based learning. With video games, students can make believe and be someone else, through the avatar affordances of the technology. The game psychologically transports them to other places. They are able to take risks and experiment, and learn through failure, strengthening their skills and knowledge continually. They can make any number of choices, all of which have different consequences. Trying to beat one's own previous best score is an addictive aspect of many video games, and keeps the learner engaged. This leads not only to self testing but also embraces ipsative forms of assessment, where students measure their performance against their own previous achievements.

There are other elements of gaming such as the social connections and competition features of games that make playing so appealing. We have also to consider some of the subversive elements of games based learning, such as hacking and modding that appeal to so many gamers.

All of these are very powerful motivators. They are an important part of youth culture and teachers can no longer ignore computer games or believe they are irrelevant to education. They are staring us in the face and won't go away. Our challenge now is to discover how we can fully harness the power of these kinds of engagement and the potential for new forms of assessment in formalised settings. Each of these possibilities make learning through games playing highly motivational, but beyond this, they also enable learners to explore new ideas, reflect deeply in their actions, and ultimately, they are fun.

Photo by Sherif Salama on Flickr


#GBL - the suspension of reality by Steve Wheeler was written in Plymouth, England and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

When will my (3D) prints appear?

With 3D printers, we are able to address problems we have never solved before. In the medical and engineering professions, we are seeing real advances in understanding because of the affordances of additive manufacturing. Doctors can 3D print a heart or other organ to see exactly what they need to do to treat a disease. Engineers can get to the crux of the problem by 3D printing a structure or part of a machine to find new solutions. Architects, designers, food technologists and also the military, are discovering the benefits of creating 3D versions of reality. But what about the teaching profession? How can teachers harness the potential of 3D printing? What are the barriers to adoption of this new technology? Is there an emerging 3D pedagogy?

In conversation with teachers I have learnt that one of the biggest problems of 3D printing is the speed with which the machine renders an object. Some teachers have pointed out that in a lesson of less than an hour, not much can be achieved when the machine is sat there chugging away, laboriously printing an artefact layer by layer, one or two microns every few seconds. Speeds will increase as the technology develops, possibly to the same level as the Star Trek replicator (Earl Grey, hot!), but until that time, how will the 3D printer fare in the standard school classroom?

In Twitter conversations yesterday, we discussed the speed of 3D printing. My view is that there is something of a fascination with the slow burn layer by layer building of an artefact. When 3D printer technology eventually attains the speed of the Star Trek replicator, where objects appear instantly, will this effect be lost? Although teachers argue for a quicker rendering of 3D objects to maximise lesson time, isn't there a good counter argument that watching an object slowly materialise inside the printer an opportunity for students to think and reflect on their concept, and appraise their work. Slow learning has some merits and is growing into a significant aspect of pedagogy. There is also a sense of achievement, when students finally get to hold the object they designed, scanned and 'made themselves'. I suggested that perhaps a speed regulator should then be built into the design of future 3D printers. When I spoke to the Ultimaker team yesterday, they told me that regulators were already fitted into current machines. I'm glad we're thinking along the same lines!

Photo by Jonathan Juursema on Wikimedia Commons


When will my prints appear? by Steve Wheeler was written in Preston, England and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

3D Pedagogy

I recently wrote a blogpost entitled 'Maker Pedagogy' where I outlined some of the emerging educational benefits of learning through making. The rise in popularity of FabLabs (Fabrication laboratories) and Makerspaces has highlighted the positive aspects of learning through the process of designing, fixing, mending, problem solving, using tools, repurposing and creating new objects. The advent of 3D Printing (also known as additive manufacturing) has brought maker pedagogy opportunities to schools and other educational institutions in a fairly affordable manner. Many teachers may still baulk at considering using such tools in the classroom, just as many did when iPads and other seemingly exotic technologies were introduced. Yet, the only real barrier once the cost has been met, is how teachers will actually use such technology to support, enhance, enrich or otherwise extend learning. Although still in its infancy, it is already clear that 3D printing is having an impact on the motivation and engagement of students.

Today I heard one story of a disaffected student that was particularly heart warming. Connor was seen by his teachers as a low achiever, a boy who was simply disengaged from learning. Then one day he saw a 3D printer being demonstrated in his classroom during a technology lesson. He went home that evening feeling quite excited. That night as he lay on his bed, he saw that the handle on his bedroom door had been broken. He took the handle in to school the next day, and asked his teacher to help him 3D print a replacement. This minor success spurred him on to do better in school. He became increasingly more engaged, because he now realised that every subject - not just technology - might also offer him ideas that he could take and use anywhere, outside the school walls.

So how will 3D printing contribute to the development of pedagogy? Will it have an impact on lessons? What will it do to inspire students to learn? If you are using 3D printers in lessons, or know of anyone who is, please let us know how you are incorporating this technology into your teaching, what you see as its benefits, and what you think are the limitations. Please also let us know how you think it is impacting upon students' learning, and whether it is influencing your own professional practice in any way. Thank you!

(NB: The story of Connor comes courtesy of Paul Croft, director of Create Education).

Photo by Steve Wheeler


3D pedagogy by Steve Wheeler was written in Glasgow, Scotland and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Opening up #learning: Forms and formats

Following on from my previous post, I was asked what was the difference between new forms of learning and new formats of learning. With so many technology tools, channels and services available to us, it's an easy question to answer. To address the question however, we initially need to put the question of dialogue with teachers and peers to one side and focus solely on content.

Where once all that was available as a portable medium was the text book, students would need to spend time reading in a more or less linear fashion to follow the thinking of the author. With the advent of educational television in the middle of the last century, students were offered the affordances of audio commentary and visual cueing. This brought together two of the most potent human senses of sight and sound, and later, as programmed texts became available to accompany television, we exploited what psychologist Allan Paivio described as the dual cognitive facilities of imagen (visual) and logogen (speech and writing) processing. The introduction of video tape enabled the further facility of pausing, rewinding and fast forwarding content, as well as the capability to store it for use at any convenient time. This was one of the first occasions when technology began to open up non-linear forms of content consumption. But it was still consumption of content, and had advanced learning very little from the time where only text books were available.

The arrival of multi-media introduced the affordance of non-linear content presentation, where students could study the knowledge contained within the media in any sequence, or iteration. Multi-media also brought with it the earliest forms of interaction with content beyond the multiple choice questions and remedial loops of computer assisted learning. Students could interrogate the content and could also influence the direction, pace and focus of content through early games based systems.

The arrival of the Internet, and subsequently the Web brought interactive content to the desk top, and the introduction and rapid adoption of mobile technologies allowed students to access content any time, and just about any place. All of the above developments represent formats of knowledge - the manner and context in which content is presented to the learner, and what they are able to do with that knowledge. The forms of knowledge are made possible by the formats, but are essentially driven by the learner.

The forms of knowledge now available are numerous and are made possible by the many different technologies and technological affordances. Knowledge can be negotiated using open repository systems such as wikis, blogs and discussion forums. Knowledge can be represented in many forms on the web including through still or moving image sequences, text and spoken words, music, and of course through hypertext. Indeed it is the latter that has generated the most diverse and serendipitous forms of learning on the web, and aligns neatly to rhizomatic learning theory. It can be unpredictable, chaotic, but essentially purposeful, as learners navigate their way across the digital terrain, discovering for themselves. These are embryonic thoughts and are open to discussion, and comments as ever are very welcome.

Photo by Age Bosma on Wikimedia Commons


Opening up #learning: new forms of knowledge by Steve Wheeler was written in Amsterdam, Holland is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Opening up #learning: new forms of knowledge

Opening up learning means creating opportunities for learners that were previously unattainable. Technology can do this. For those who are housebound for example, and cannot visit a library or classroom, the Web provides a storehouse of endless opportunities to learn just about any topic. The social web opens up channels to connect with other people around the world, either experts or fellow students.

But opening up learning comes with a price. Those whose livelihoods or reputations are built upon traditional forms of educational provision will suddenly find themselves redundant or sidelined.

One area under threat is the publishing industry. In the last decade, there has been a significant decline in paper based publications, and an upsurge in e-books and other forms of digital representation of knowledge. Publishers remain in business, but to be successful they now have to adapt to the new and trenchant demands of the digital economy.

In 2012, for the first time, the number of e-books sold over Amazon surpassed paper based books. The affordances of technology are many, but one of the key ones for those who work in education is the capability of the tools to represent knowledge and learning in so many new and engaging ways. Technology is opening up this kind of learning dramatically. Students or scholars who blog regularly will tell you that it clarifies their thinking, and when they decide to press the publish button, a waiting audience of readers will comment and challenge their thinking further.

Knowledge is now available in many different forms and formats, some of which are openly accessible and editable. The exponential growth of online repositories of knowledge (Wikipedia), media (Wikimedia Commons - the source of the image above), images (Flickr, Instagram) and video (YouTube, Vimeo) would not have been so dramatic if there was less demand. Yet people of all ages now avidly consume and create content on a regular basis, and the availability of social networking services such as Twitter and Facebook amplify these activities further. Arguably the most important aspect of this phenomena, however, is not the amount of content that is available, but the richness of the context within which it is available. The affordances of connecting, sharing, sorting, filtering and commenting on content are by far the most powerful attributes of the social web, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.

Photo by Tomomarusan on Wikimedia Commons


Opening up #learning: new forms of knowledge by Steve Wheeler was written in Plymouth, England is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Opening up #learning: Google in the exam room

Learning is changing, but are schools systems and testing methods keeping pace with these changes? Should they? In a recent BBC TV interview, the head of the examination and qualifications organisation OCR, Mark Dawe, argued that exams and other testing should change to accommodate the new ways of learning that are emerging. He suggested that we should now allow internet access into the exam room, because 'it reflected the way pupils learned and how they would work in the future.'  His ideas were immediately shot down by Chris McGovern ,representing the Campaign for Real Education, who remarked that this proposal was tantamount to dumbing down education. 'We have to test what children are carrying in their heads,' he said.

Dawe of course disagrees with this conclusion, preferring a more progressive approach to testing. He suggests that Google and Internet enabled devices in the exam room is inevitable. He argued that 'when we are asking a question and we know there is access to the Internet, we could ask a different question - it's about the interpretation, the discussion.' This is a fundamental challenge to the way examinations are conducted, and a positive nod in the direction of the new ways of technology enabled learning that some educators find entirely problematic.

What are your views on this debate? Do you think children should be able to access the Internet during their exams? Or should we be cautious and continue to maintain the status quo? If Internet access is made available during exams, will the questions need to change? If so, what will be the benefits and the challenges? The comments box below awaits your views.

Photo by Alejandro Caicedo on Wikimedia Commons


Opening up learning: Google in the exam room by Steve Wheeler was written in Plymouth, England is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.