Just listening to Steven, through Wes Fryer.

I have to begin by saying that listening to Roger Schank inspired me too, I even posted about it at the time. It was one of the first podcasts of Wesley’s I heard and he really challenged my thinking, in fact I wonder if I can track back to hearing that podcast and that being the catalyst for the challenges I have faced in the last 18 months as I began to push back?

School improvement, are we really doing what our society requires?

Our schools are so NOT “fine they need tweaking”, there needs to be a fundamental shift in what the curriculum is addressing and what schools are supporting. We in New Zealand are quite blessed with the new curriculum, it is very new and shiny and very 21^st Century perspective, however I wonder how these are being implemented in schools. It makes me wonder what the key pressures are on schools that truly define how the curriculum looks, it is not simply the National Curriculum.

Steven Wyckoff spends quite a bit of time talking about the analogue of learning to drive and someone made the comment that while you’re growing up you spend a long time watching people drive. I heard it said once that while you are learning to drive, driving instructors spend quite a while telling people where they need to look. “Focus on what is immediately in front, look out around parked cars”, etc. People’s closest sensory experience to driving? It’s sitting in the passenger seat. So a new driver has unlearn the passive ‘watching’, for example looking at someone walking over a footbridge for the whole time it takes for the car to pass under it. Drivers then need to learn to be active observers of the environment around them. There are so many things that students are learning that are wasting time… We DO need to spend more time on learning the skills that they are going to need in life.

So what DOES a curriculum look like?

What are the other pressures and issues we need address in school?

What are the school teacher:student ratio look like in New Zealand. Are there the same issues as in Kansas where the system needs to be adjusted to lower the ratio or is there a genuine issue around ratios?

“In order to do what?” Brings the curriculum into sharp focus. Steven links the need to focus education on ‘economic productivity’ for the future. But I want to consider, is there any value in learning for learnings- sake? Does it not do something for the brain development, regardless of purpose?

My next question: Are there quality apprenticeships or study-to-work programmes available in New Zealand that realistically address the issue applying students for the workforce?

As I was listening I was thinking this idea about applied learning and the links made to Ted McCain and the discussion/ presentations made by Ian Jukes in Napier last year.

I was discussing with a high-school principal the other day around the issues of NCEA level1 not meeting the expectations required for courses in NCEA level 2, let alone NCEA level1 OR 2 meeting expectations for the workforce.

So how are we going to measure success for the 21^st Century, what are the skills required and EQUALLY, what is the core knowledge required for the future?

]]> http://educatingthedragon.edublogs.org/2008/06/23/natural-learning-what-schools-don%e2%80%99t-do-by-steve-wycoff/feed/ 1 http://educatingthedragon.edublogs.org/2008/04/01/ulearn08-my-not-so-secret-wish/ http://educatingthedragon.edublogs.org/2008/04/01/ulearn08-my-not-so-secret-wish/#comments Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:58:08 +0000 Dragon09 http://educatingthedragon.edublogs.org/2008/04/01/ulearn08-my-not-so-secret-wish/ I don’t know how I’m going to do it. Not being attached to a school at present let alone and ICTPD cluster but I have got to get to Ulearn ’08.

I was flicking through the Education Gazette at lunch today and came across the advert.

Christchurch Convention Centre

8-10 October 2008

www.Ulearn.org.nz

I’m always up for doing a presentation or two, you know me. And it’s always great to meet at the blogger café and get some F2F time with folk. But there are 3 main reasons for attending.

Will Richardson- The Don of the Edublogosphere himself.

Steven Carden – He whose book inspired me to action with my “Did you Know?… NZ” presentation at Learning@Schools08 (I’m kinda hoping it’ll be ready of ULearn!)

And Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach (http://www.21stcenturycollaborative.com/)who I missed at TUANZ that time and am desperate to see.

Any and all ideas about getting there gratefully received.

 Just as The World is Flat and Growing up Digital rocked the US so this book should be a ’sit up and listen’ kinda thing for New Zealand. Whether we will or not is another matter, but we should.

 New Zealand is in a locality and has a population situation that makes innovation and change possible, with relative ease as societies go. Let’s make our educational system relevent for our students who are entering a global economy from a very unique direction.

Let’s stop apologising, play to our strengths and make a real difference.

Using the computer as an intellectual partner allows those engaged to play to their strengths- machines are great at recording and recalling facts and information, the human much better at critical thinking, the creation of knowledge and the ability to reflect on their comprehension and conception of knowledge. ‘Mindtools are a media for collaboratively negociating meaning.’

So, according to Jonassen, how should computers be used in school?

Different softwares and applications come under each of these heading but broadly speaking Computers aid learning in the following way:

Supporting knowledge construction, principally by organising and representing information in a useable format.

Exploration, accessing and comparing information, much like the advance search features on Google and Yahoo.

By Doing, simulating real-life senarios or providing students with the ’sandbox’ to experiment with what can be done.

Enabling communication and collaboration, I immediately thought of wikis, blogs, skype and eliminate as online resources.

Reflecting, this is what I briefly mentioned in the opening where the student engages with the computer as an intellectual partner, freeing the student from the mundain to focus on the higher order work.

This use of technology blends well with constructivist theory, but having software used in this manner does not guarentee more effective learning environments in schools. Much pedagogical awareness by the teacher is required. Using technology, Brown (2000) argues, can sometimes can even be counter productive and destract from the construction of generative knowledge. It is insufficient for technology to simply expose students to large volumes of disorganised information. By take such information and constructing new understandings that impact upon one’s view of the world, only then does it become generative knowledge. There are broader pedagogical issues and classroom management considerations to take into account.

Let’s face it, it still always comes down to the teacher and the way they choose to engage with the technology.

Brown, M. Learning in the 21^st Century: Being critical, going deeper and thinking smarter. Computers in New Zealand Schools, 12 (3), 3-7

Jonassen, D. (2000). What are mindtools? Computers as Mindtools for school. Engaging critical thinking (2^nd ed.,pp3-20). Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.

Here’s the tale of Alligator Alley:

Alligator Alley is a book that my class were reading together at the beginning of the lesson today. We had’read a bit and what happens next? and see if you can guess the ending etc etc. They were asked to talk to talking partners about “What questions would you ask Mrs O’Malley?” During the feedback time one my kids asked “So what’s the difference between alligators and crocodiles?…. (to be honest, I have no idea)

“That’s a good question I say, How could we find out? One thing led to another and this group then typed in “What’s the difference between Alligators and crocodiles?” into Google kids (A few other search engine ideas from Louise, thanks btw). They then scroled through and found Gator Hole.

They then spent ages and ages and ages…and ages finding out EVERYTHING they possibly could about Alligators and crocodiles. They then pulled off relevent extract (and cool pictures) to create a single screen backdrop to their oral feedback of their findings…. The learning intention for the lesson is ‘read…read..read’ who care if they are not reading School Journal Part1 Number 6 2004. This fired their desire to find out. And I bet they read more in that session than they would do normally. Personalized learning in action.

I conclude with a nod to Interwrite for the board, Sitech for the inspiration, my principal for wireless internet access, all of these things came together for my kids to direct their own learning.

I think this is a clear case of my Learning Intention being “Reading for information” but then my kids changed the context ‘on the fly’, and I had the technology available to allow them ‘to go for it’.

My school is part of the Sitech Champion Schools programme. As part of that programme the staff here have been involved with a professional development model that appears to be working. Hardware and software have been purchased for the school and the company has provided many hours of training and professional development in it’s use in the classroom environment.

Private provision is an interesting situation, company’s vary in there product and support available. I would be interested to know of any strategy or framework which guides this aspect of school provision. As the product and support varies from company to company the experience of both staff and students also varies along with the development of ICT within the school. Is this a good thing, or bad?

Perhaps the diversity of provision is advantageous in Early Childhood and Primary phases but I would surmise that as students’ progress through Secondary and onto Tertiary national parity would be more desirable to ensure an ICT literate workforce.

Sitech Learning Zone

English

www.primaryresources.co.uk

www.readwritethink.org/student_mat/index.asp

www.tumblebooks.com

www.education.smarttech.com

www.funbrain.com

www.rainforestmaths.com (Click on Writing fun down the bottom right) 

Maths

Woodlands Maths

www.mathszone.co.uk/

www.smartkiddies.com (Aussie money)

www.mathletics.com.au

www.quiz-tree.com (Maths quizzes) 

Science

www.bbc.co.uk/schools/scienceclips/index_flash.shtml

www.topmarks.co.uk/Interactive.aspx

www.durackss.eq.edu.au/ifiles/ifault.htm

www.primaryschool.com.au/

www.howstuffworks.com (watch out for popups)

http://kids.nationalgeographic.com/ 

Others

www.youtube.com

www.teachertube.com

www.video.google.com

www.promeatheanplanet/flipcharts.htm

www.blueletterbible.com

www.enchantedlearning.com

www.thecoloringspot.com 

The support for ICT professional development is central to the government’s initiatives; is this just rhetoric or are they prepared to specifically fund to meet their outcomes? Under ‘E-Learning activities and contributions to facilitate/ support effective teaching’ teaching capabilities is ranked first on the list (MOE 2006, pg 5) with professional development again first under Communication and Learning Networks; capability and services (MOE 2006, pg7) But how will that translate into the school environment? I spoke to a principal concerning the financial aspects of ICT in the school. I discovered the following:· No money is ear-marked, tagged or ring-fenced specifically for Professional Development in ICT. · Specific funds are designated for such expenses as the Laptop scheme, ICTPD Clusters, networks and broadband connection and SMS.  

Some may argue that when funding is given for an ICTPD Cluster it is assumed that some of that money would be identified for professional development³, but that is not stated, merely implied and the reality is that participating school principals can allocate that money ‘as they see fit’ within the boundaries laid out by the contract. The ICTPD contact states: What can schools use the funding for?
The funding can be used for a range of costs associated with professional development activities for staff including (but not limited to):
· Teacher release time;
· Costs associated with workshops, seminars, and meetings;
· Internal/external cluster facilitation and support.Schools will be required to set out a budget in their proposal that details anticipated expenditure. Successful clusters will be accountable for showing progress against the planned expenditure during the course of their three year contract This shows a clear focus on professional development, I see now how the Ministry also keeps tabs on such expenditure. There are also checks and measures of development through the PD. I recall filling out several questionnaires on the top over the last 12 to 18 months. So it is right to ask the question “Where is the money going?” $120,000 sounds a lot of money, but that could easily be halved with the employment of a full time co-ordinator/ facilitator plus their hardware/software needs. The issue then arising around the scope of the role of the ICT coordinator, their competence and qualification to deliver the lion’s share of the  Professional Development and the most feasible and cost effective way to up-skill teachers to the deliver, meaningfully, in the classroom.   It has been identified that teachers having both their pedagogical approaches challenged and ‘forced’ integration of new technologies is problematic and more involved than a 3 hour workshop on a Friday afternoon (Jacobsen, D. M.,2001). Therefore funding has to reflect such a commitment.The document (MOE, 2006) is smattered with phrases such as “teacher(s) must be supported….through professional development and consistent ongoing support..” and “…teachers becoming confident and capable users of ICT and understanding how to integrate ICT effectively into their teaching practice” (MOE, 2006,pg 10) all are noble goals and ones that need to be addressed for the 21^st Century Learner but the answer to the how question remains elusive if funding specifically for ICT professional development is left for principals to pull from their ops-grant or private contracts and funding, especially after the contract is completed and the funding dries up, what is a school to do then? 

In the case of my school, which is why I have identified it as a critical issue, the current professional development is being supplied not by ministry funding but as a negotiated add-on to a wider ICT project. Is it right that professional development in ICT be left to whether a principal has such a vision or not? Is there a need for the government to be specific with funding if they are to be held accountable for whether or not the outcomes for “teacher capabilites” (MOE, 2006, pg 11)  are realistically to be met?

  ^{3http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=11143&data=l#P29_2327} 

^{Jacobsen, D. M. (2001). Building Different Bridges: Technology Integration, Engaged Student Learning, and New Approaches to Professional Development. Paper presented at AERA 2001: What We Know and How We Know It, the 82nd Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA: April 10 – 14, 2001. MOE, (2006) Enabling the 21st Century Learner: An e-Learning Action Plan for Schools 2006- 2010}

I’ll be there too. Hopefully recording for Edcast, so if you’ve got a presentation you don’t having recorded please leave a comment. Sorry I can’t record Ewan et al (contractual complications I’m told- so sad!) I’ll also be presenting Skypetalkandwrite, so whatch out for that too. Looking forward to catching up with Virtual Friends like Louise and Allanah and Jane

 See you there!