Constructing learning the 'Google' way ..

I could never claim to have been a 'constructivist' when it comes to learning. 'Teach at 'em' was the way I'd been taught, the way I'd been taught to teach, and the way I've always done it. In his book 'Visible Learning'  Hattie talks about the quality of 'direct instruction' as having a high effect size, and so it seems reasonable to assume that I should just keep on 'teaching at 'em' as I've always done.

However I'm always open minded when it comes to anything that might improve the learning of the students in front of me, and my enthusiasm for eLearning has offered some interesting opportunities for improving student engagement and learning

At a recent elearning Seminar I found myself quite excited by a demonstration from a young teacher from Dunedin on how she was using Google Forms to engage her students, so I decided to give this a go.

As a revision and extension task I created 5 questions structured around the SOLO framework. The questions ranged from Uni/Multi-structural, to Extended Abstract. That is, from simple recall, to deeper critical thinking.

I created a Google Form with these questions, and set a link to the form on our Intranet. The class then opened the form in class and, working in silence as if in a test, they individually answered the 5 questions to the best of their ability (the silence thing is important).

Once they had finished, I then took the results and shared them with the class as a spreadsheet.

The boys were put into groups of three, and were then required to set up a Google Doc in which they had to construct a group 'model answer' for the 5 questions. As input they had the collective class responses, and any web or text resources they chose. The Google Doc had to be shared with the other group members, and with me as their teacher.

This is where the test-like completion of the initial responses was important. It meant that it was likely that many of the answers would contain inaccuracies, and so individually and collectively they had to critically analyse this data, looking for errors as well as correct answers.

Several really interesting things happened. They began (without any direct instruction from me) to use the Google Docs tool to 'collaborate' in constructing the correct answers. They worked on this material for one class period, and then completed it that evening. To varying degrees they began to use colour to distinguish each member's contribution. They used the comments function to offer ideas, and question each others' contributions. The comments began to create a dialogue between group members.

Then as we went over their answers as a whole class, boys began to edit their work, correcting as we went.

The level of engagement appeared to be huge. The learning appeared to be huge. Do I have any quantitative data to back up these claims? No. Do I have any qualitative data? Certainly their feedback at the end of the exercise was overwhelmingly positive. Perhaps next time I'll make sure that I have an 'exit survey' prepared in which the class evaluates the exercise.

Fascinating!!!

It's not about the technology ...

I've 'followed' Prof Steve Wheeler of Plymouth University for some time. A recent blog post of his,  'Blogging with Freire', struck a chord. We have said for some time that it's not about the technology, it's about the learning, and Prof Wheeler's post makes exactly this point, looking at what Freire might have said in the 'Web 2.0' era.

Worth a read.

eLearning reflections

With EduTECH 2013 behind us (only just), I wanted to to ponder the legacy of affirmations and revelations that the 3 days of intensive learning have left.

Of most significance is the affirmation that it isn't (and has never been) about the technology. It is about the learning but, perhaps more importantly, it is about the thinking - creative, analytical and critical.

The technological revolution has laid before us all a series of challenges, challenges that exist because of the access to information, and the degree of interconnectedness, that changing technology has created.

The nature of the game of education has changed. It seems that we can learn almost anything that we choose from the web today. Knowledge is power, but it is no longer a matter of dishing out information carefully in order to safeguard our positon of power, because our constituency can simply bypass us if it chooses. Learners can use the web, and their inter-connectedness, to access knowledge at any time that they choose.

What may prove to be slightly more difficult to acquire without some guidance is the ability to think critically, although the web offers an increasingly powerful set of tools with which to develop these skills.

I'm slightly embarrassed to admit that one of my own revelations was the powerful set of Google Operators that lie behind a Google search. Google gives us access to so much information that it is essential to be able to sort the information  and critically evaluate what you find. The operators allow the searcher to select specific information sources. So for example the searcher might want to compare and contrast views of a specific event formt he perspective of the protagonists  Imagine being able to see how the British and Argetinian Press portrayed the Falklands/Malvinas war of 1982.

Of even more interest and perhaps significance was the discovery of the software 'Wolfram Alpha'. This software allows the learner to select two different things to compare. The software then selects a wdie range iof dta formt eh web about these two things/ideas and assembles the data in a form that allows analysis and deeper thinking  The viewer can look a trends, similarities, differences without having to spend a large amount of time collecting and laboriously processing this data.

Steven Wolfam can be seen here discussing this amazing tool.

The biggest gain for me was the motivation to try out the use of a couple of Google tools in a constructivist lesson. The opportunity to reflect as a learner was also valuable.  I'll describe and explain these in a later post.