“More than Tools” the Special Collection is already out

One year ago, Professor  Neil Selwyn from Monash University and myself, launched a call for an Special Collection at the International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (ETHE dedicated to critical and diverse analyses of the reality of Educational Technology in universities, and today, with the publication of the editorial of the collection, the issue is complete.

I have to say that it is not a “customary” editorial, that is to say, it is not an introductory summary of the papers in the collection; I have had the immense opportunity to write with Professor Selwyn an article of critical reflection on educational technology today that has tickled my brain a lot… a lot to think about (on the subject, on how it is written, on my profession, on a thousand things)… not only now, for the future… and I wanted to share it with you:

More than tools? Making sense of the ongoing digitizations of higher education https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0109-y

In addition, I sincerely believe that the collection has turned out to be a very good collection of articles worth reading calmly, all of them with high quality and diverse points of view, and with a good combination of experience and freshness in the authorship of the texts.

Once the publication of the collection is finished, I would like to invite you to read them all and to reopen the discussion with your comments and contributions…. I think the articles are more only interesting when they help us to build debate.

I would also like to thank Neil Selwyn from the bottom of my heart, for all that I have learned from him during this time, for the immense opportunity to count on him in this effort. I hope we can work together again, at least I’ve learned a lot.

Thanks to the ETHE Journal for its commitment to an issue like this one, closer to theory and reflection than to the issues that concern us so much lately and thanks a thousand to the magazine’s team (Josep, Elsa) for their invaluable help.

Obviously, to say that without the people who sign these papers the collection could not exist, I have confirmed my admiration for many of them and I have discovered others from whom I will surely continue to read things. I also hope to have the opportunity to meet those I don’t know yet… hopefully soon

Finally, thanks to all the people who sent us their manuscripts, whether or not they are in the final collection. Thank you for being concerned with, and working on, these issues.

The only way to think about EdTech is to think critically about it…. it is the only way to make it useful and relevant. That’s why I hope we all keep thinking….

“The goal is not improving… is deffending”

A couple of weeks ago, I had the good fortune to meet in person one of the authors I have found most suggestive in recent times in the literature on educational technology (I confess that the list of suggestive in recent times is quite long), and one of whom has also made me think more about, what I want to do from now on Ed Tech: Maarten Simons from UK-Leuven.

Professor Simons, together with his colleague Mathias Decruypere have written some very interesting papers on socio-material analysis of educational environments. And, answering to my interest in meeting them and seeking some synergy between our work, they kindly agreed to meet me for a short while on my recent visit to Leuven.

This is not a post about socio-materiality, neither about research methodology in educational technology (although I highly recommend the works not only of Simons and Decruypere, but of Martin Oliver and Leslie Gourlay, among others). It’s about something we talked to Professor Simons about.

When we were trying to understand better what the “other’s” starting point was, and why I had asked for a meeting, Professor Simons gave me a “warning” (a “warning to sailors” to be more precise), which I found difficult to digest in the beginning, but which gave me much to think about. He told me something like (attention to the fact that these are my memories, maybe I’m wrong about my words between my nerves and my poor English):

I do not seek to improve education, I do not believe in the need for everything we research to “improve” education. And I don’t care if I look conservative with a position like that, but I want to know better, understand, even defend education.

In the same line of research, this open access book, signed for the two authors

Masschelein, J., & Simons, M. (2013). In defence of the school. A public issue. Leuven: E-ducation, Culture & Society Publishers. https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/400685/1/https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/400685/1/

He emphasized VERY clearly that he is not one of those who try to justify everything they do in education with an interest in the “improvement” of education (while I was listening to him, it rumbled in my head that school is not a company because we are not looking for infinite improvement). He wants to know, understand and, why not, defend education of the elements that impact on them at the moment when it is inserted (political, economic, technological, epistemological, social)…)…

and I confess that, granted the current Spanish and Worldwide situation, it’s one of the most revolutionary things I can think of lately.

Simons has written a lot about school learning, which moves away from the school as a building or as an organization, and becomes a different reality and I invite you to read it. To begin with, I invite you to read this work from 2015:

Masschelein, J., & Simons, M. (2015). Education in times of fast learning: The future of the school. Ethics and Education, 10(1), 84-95.

In that meeting, I learned many things from my interlocutors (and I will intend to learn more in the future), from myself, from education in general and from educational technology in particular, but today I just wanted to share with you this little bit of my experience, and recommend to you vividly the reflection of this author.

I hope it gives you a lot to think about.

Notes:

  • Professor Simons is Professor of Theory and History of Education at UK Leuven.
  • And what was I doing in Leuven? I was participating in the International Week of the UC-Leuven Teacher Training School, thanks to the invitation of my colleague Karine Hindrix. Thanks to her I had this wonderful learning opportunity.

Thinking on Teaching Competence for a Digital World

For some months now, in informal conversations with other colleagues and, more in depth with my friends Francesc Esteve and Jordi Adell, we have been thinking about the idea that the definition of Teaching Digital Competence (hereinafter TDC), as it is proposed in most of the available models, left us with too many “unfinished ideas”…

Basically, we believed – we still believe – that the existing TDC models are based on a vision of what is digital competence (generic), that is used as fundamentals, and on top, pedagogy is “spread” as a layer (like butter)… but definitively in a too thin layer. As a result, these models – and their developments – are guilty of three main evils at least:

  • They do not understand teaching action as an integral action beyond the performance of the classroom.
  • They have a reduced and reductionist view of technology
  • They do not make explicit the type of competence model that underlies them, and if they do, they tend to coincide with models of mangerialism models, rather than integral development ones.

So we decided to work on these ideas and, in addition to a more in-depth analysis of existing CDD models, we would like proposing at least a first outline of what a Model of Teaching Competence for the Digital World would be. That is to say, a model that understands that the base is the teaching action and on it, is “spread” (to follow with the metaphor) the technology by all the corners, and in its wider perspective.

As a result of these joint thoughts, we have written two papers that have just been published and that I would like to share with you today. I know they are just in Spanish (we hope continue working on it in English in the near future), but if you are interested, I’m sure translator could help you (I’m open for chats too :-)).

Every comment and suggestion is welcome….

Fair of Technology Enhanced Didactic Activities by #rict1617

As it is already a tradition in this course (#Research & ICT for students of the First year of the Degree of Primary Education), this Wednesday the 17th has been our fair of Technology Enhanced Didactic Activities. It is a time for students to propose the activities, collect some feedback from other teachers and colleagues of the faculty, and have some chance of improving them before being delivered as final deliverable of the course.
Here you have some visual testimony of what happened on Wednesday in the hall of our faculty

Thinking critically about Ed Tech in Higher Education (Call for papers)

Last February Dr Neil Selwyn and I have published a Call for Papers for a Special Issue on The International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, in which we said:

“Digital Technology has been promoted as a crucial element for the improvement of contemporary education, and one of the key challenges to face Higher Education all over the world. Universities are now awash with digital systems and devices, with the promise of improving the performance of students and educators by enhancing learning, boosting enrolment, retention and completion rates. Individuals everywhere increasingly engage in higher education along digital lines. In parallel, educational technology is now a multi-billion dollar industry – involving global technology corporations in local educational provision and practice. The need to ask critical questions of the relationship higher education and technology is more pressing than ever.”

I not a question of being in favour or against Technology. I’m a technological person, I love technology, I’m teacher of Educational Technology, and I’m a researcher in Educational Technology. I personally believe on the importance of technology for understanding better the world, for living better. I love the time I live, I love challenges, and this is one of the most challenging time ever.

Nevertheless, as a “not new technology lover”, I already have past the time of being enlightened about technology, and I can see (guess, for being honest) that the instrumental way in which we have understood technology until now, is definitively not enough, and less for education.

From the vision I have, the instrumental use of technology is more or less “solved” in our times… Web 2.0 tools are easy to get, use and bring it to education, to our classes, to the teachers and students hands. Nonetheless, I’m not pretty sure that the way in which we –and others- are using them and including them in our educational systems, are entire understood by all of us… from a critical perspective.

This is one of the reasons for leading this Special Issue (Thematic Series in the language of the journal). As we said:
“Against this background, this thematic series looks at the impact of digital technology on higher education through a deliberately critical lens. We are interested in moving beyond notions of technology as an instrumental issue that is neutrally implemented, and instead, develop more nuanced analyses by problematizing the claims and assumptions surrounding higher education in a digital age.

Recent critical scholarship of technology has encompassed many study area and research topics. These include the understanding of new literacies and personal competencies under the view of media and arts education, philosophy of education, community education, critical pedagogy and activist education. There are also burgeoning critiques of technology within feminist and gender studies literatures, policy studies, and emerging interest in critical realist, socio-material and post-humanist directions.”

This is a personal invitation for you. For all of you that are exploring in a critical way how technology is impacting in Higher Education. Let’s show us your research, prepare and sent us your paper and we hope this would be a good point for continuing discussing and thinking critically.

The deadline is 1st of August, en the entire information is here

http://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/criticaledtech

Hope to read you there!

GITE Seminar: Basic readings about Educational Technology Vol. 2

Following the initiative started in May with the first one, now we have done the second version of the Recommended Readings Seminar, following the compilation of readings done in the Book “Educational Technology” by Chris Davies y Rebbeca Eynon (2016). This second part is titled by the authors as  “Research into Technology and Learning Sciences, and Associated Theoretical and Methodological Issues”, and includes the following readings.

We hope you find them provocative:

The Science of Learning and Instruction Meets Computer Science

  • Vannevar Bush, ‘As We May Think’, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1945, 1–19.
  • Pask, ‘Conversational Techniques in the Study and Practice of Education’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1976, 46, 12–25.
  • Arthur C. Graesser, Shulan Lu, George Tanner Jackson, Heather Hite Mitchell, Matthew Ventura, Andrew Olney, and Max M. Louwerse, ‘AutoTutor: A Tutor with Dialogue in Natural Language’, Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 2004, 36, 2, 180–92.
  • Yanghee Kim and Amy L. Baylor, ‘A Social-Cognitive Framework for Pedagogical Agents as Learning Companions’, Educational Technology Research and Development, 2006, 54, 6, 569–90.
  • Edys S. Quellmalz and James W. Pellegrino, ‘Technology and Testing’, Science, 2009, 2, 75–9

Users and Contexts in Designing Technology for Learning

  • Ann L. Brown, ‘Design Experiments: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Creating Complex Interventions in Classroom Settings’, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1992, 2, 2, 141–78.
  • Dahlbäck, A. Jönsson, and L. Ahrenberg, ‘Wizard of Oz Studies: Why and How’, Knowledge Based Systems, 1993, 6, 4, 258–66.
  • Kari Kuutti, ‘Activity Theory as a Potential Framework for Human-Computer Interaction Research’, in B. Nardi (ed.), Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction (MIT Press, 1995), pp. 17–44.
  • Richard E. Mayer and Roxana Moreno, ‘A Split-Attention Effect in Multimedia Learning: Evidence for Dual Processing Systems in Working Memory’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 1998, 90, 2, 312–20.
  • Allison Druin, ‘The Role of Children in Design of New Technology’, Behaviour and Information Technology, 2002, 21, 1, 1–25.
  • Sasha Barab and Kurt Squire, ‘Design Based Research: Putting a Stake in the Ground’, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2004, 13, 1, 1–14.

Part 3: Techniques for Analysing Learning Behaviour Online

  • Henri and B. Pudelko, ‘Understanding and Analysing Activity and Learning in Virtual Communities’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2003, 19, 474–87.
  • De Wever, T. Schellens, M. Valcke, and H. Van Keer, ‘Content Analysis Schemes to Analyze Transcripts of Online Asynchronous Discussion Groups: A Review’, Computers & Education, 2006, 46, 1, 6–28.
  • Caroline Haythornthwaite and Maarten de Laat, ‘Social Networks and Learning Networks: Using Social Network Perspectives to Understand Social Learning’, in L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, and T. Ryberg (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning (2010), pp. 183–90.
  • Cristobal Romero and Sebastian Ventura, ‘Educational Data Mining: A Review of the State of the Art’, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part C: Applications And Reviews, 2010, 40, 6, 601–18.
  • Simon Buckingham Shum and Rebecca Ferguson, ‘Social Learning Analytics’, Educational Technology & Society, 2011, 15, 3, 3–26.
  • Lori Lockyer, Elizabeth Heathcote, and Shane Dawson, ‘Informing Pedagogical Action: Aligning Learning Analytics with Learning Design’, American Behavioral Scientist, 2013, 57, 10, 1439–59.

the clearest side of the Dark side: copying The Friskies

I was writing a long intro to this post, but it is not important. This is just for sharing with you the reflections of one of the groups of my students (students of 1st year of the degree in Primary Education Teaching) about the Dark side of TextBooks, as the final part of a task in my class.

Please, take a look and enjoy:

The Dark Side of TextBooks

By Friskihedgehogs

Government and editorials

WE ARE GOING TO START FROM THE END: the relationship between government and editorials and their interests to make money thanks to the educational system (Adell 2010). This situation goes on to a worse and deeper problem, the consciousness of teachers as professionals. The teacher’s creativity melts in a useless tool in which they do not consider themselves like key pieces of the educational process, they rely on the textbook with so fiercely that they have lost the point of teaching. Therefore, the entire planning and lessons are driven throughout the daily class, semester and year with the only contents into the textbook. Besides, the content of the textbooks is something that does not escape from the evil hand of the bias.

Raymond Williams in W. Apple (2000) argues that books are created for people who have a specific knowledge, culture, vision and ideas. If we assume that, we must be aware that the bias and pressure that governments pose over the editorials is overwhelming. Many times, the money editorials make is by linking their products with the ideological purpose of politics. Thus, the benefit of the book sales goes directly to the pockets of those who have the control over the educational system and the editorials. By managing the educational curriculum with that power relationship they decide what materials are used, what teachers must do and what textbooks they must follow. All in all, it is a way to manage the knowledge and the knowledge is power, and the roads from where the knowledge travels are part of the social distribution of power, as it is said by John Fiske in Apple (2000).

Moreover, the next sentence is perfect to grasp the idea “education and power are terms of an indissoluble couplet” (Apple, 2000). This means going so far away, but we want to let this as crystal clear. The neo-Marxist ideas in the sociology of education saw how the official knowledge was distributed and, who controlled its distribution. Therefore, schools act as factories in which the dominant class position is teaching its ideology so as to maintain and legitimatize its social position, Althusser in (J. Saha, 2011).This relevant statement falls dawn on how knowledge is collected into the textbooks and as said before, it is written for someone with an ideology and with a specific intention, perhaps is so rude but, do we need, under such evidence, believe and rely on textbooks to guide our daily lives as teachers? Can we keep going with this textbook in our classroom? Is it not enough all that we know?

The most important fact for me is boys and girls in class, their future as citizens of a society, a society asking them to be competent, but competent under the current society peculiar interest. If we accept the textbook a unique guide, no one is teaching them to be critical, free, dreamers or happy, we are teaching just the contents or even worse, the packet knowledge in a textbook. We will teach them their social class and make them understand where their limits are. Here is the word, “limits”. Whereas, if we teach them where the dominant class is, how they act and how they control society. We will teach them how to be critical boys and girls who will hit this world, we will teach them how to think away from the ideological bias of the textbooks and, of course, make them able to think out of the box.

All in all, we will not set any “limit”, yet we will teach them how to take off to bit this planet. At this point, we consider tackling an important issue, as textbooks are used to deliver the so-called “official knowledge” (Apple, 2000). What are students really learning when an entire class is tied to a textbook? Can we assume that everything stated in a textbook is learned by them? Or even worse, can we assume each teacher teaches exactly what is in a textbook? Without a doubt, every student has a background, cultural basis, religious, families and an SES which differ from another; otherwise, we do not have our lovely diversity. Besides, we cannot assume the students are blank sheets eager to be painted with an amount of information, information that is supposed to be the body of knowledge with which they can obtain the Promised Land. They are not passively reading the book or learning from it, they have their own thinking and beliefs (Apple, 2000).

ONE OF THE MOST STRIKING FEATURES OF THIS TOPIC IS; what is it inside of a textbook? How is the information distorted? And, how are political interests in? “Textbooks introduce young people to an existing cultural and socio-economic order with its relations of power and domination” (Crawford, ND). Crawford states in his research about textbooks analysis an evidence of how many textbooks around the world contain bias depending on the political interest, for instance, in Spain they found evidence on how editorials have to provide the history of a region in 8 different forms in a textbook  by Makay (1997) in (Crawford, ND). There is an European organization, The Georg Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research in German which is in charge to analyse, compare and identified, historical, political and geographical presentations in the textbook (Crawford, ND). Knowing about the existence of this institution is ok; however, it does not solve the real issue, the manipulation of textbooks distribution and contents under political interests.  Thus, what could we do as a teacher? Of course, the answer is far to be easy, because we cannot change the whole system but, by knowing what politics and editorials do, we can manage the planning and the classroom and go deeper or not in a topic if we use our critical thinking about the textbook.

At this point, we want to state that critical thinking will help us to engage our students to be critical as well, and as a result, either teachers or students can start a flame which can be the first step to change the entire educational system. Because knowledge it has not to be in a textbook, knowledge is surrounding us, it is anywhere, in different forms, knowledge is drifting among us in our daily lives, knowledge is free and it is the seed of other knowledge. Knowledge is delivered and shared with our friends, parents, teachers, museums, cinemas, pictures, drawings, etc. Knowledge is alive, and it has no limits, no boundaries. This statement drives us directly to the controversy in our country, Spain, in which editorials are trying not to lose money with ridiculous arguments while sinking in a lake of reality. They blame the government for encouraging schools for hacking; they state the schools are spending money on devices with no content; and, something funny, they argue that there are no evidence that ICTs are good at all (Adell , 2010).

The fear of losing privileges and money is evident. It is like a tantrum of a kid because there is no chocolate left to eat. They are not aware of that knowledge is free. As Adell (2010) claim, the content textbooks, the inadequate web support offered by editorials and, libraries full of books are nothing without the teachers’ work because the content does not teach by itself. Also, there are several groups of teachers sharing planning, methodologies, and documents completely free which give us the opportunity to take the planning from other schools (Adell , 2010).

It does not surprise us that editorials become mad in front of such evidence. But the idea is brilliant. We can share everything just with a click. The good news is that we will have the opportunity to develop our method or planning in a group and when we say “in group” we mean the entire earth. Thanks, the internet we can chat with any teacher or headmaster of any school wherever. The amount of experience, knowledge and wisdom are tremendous. Besides, we can compare with others what they did and what they tried, just to avoid mistakes committed before. The real benefit is that knowledge will be growing nonstop with no limit.

The textbook and some limitations

WE DO NOT WANT TO GO SO FAR AWAY FROM THE REAL ISSUE, but the theory of multiple intelligences argues that each individual has a number of specific abilities (J.W., 2011). As teachers, we must provide the best path for our students for powered their abilities and spark their motivation to learn and to learn how to learn. Howard Gardner (2002) stated that every human being has eight kinds of intelligence, verbal, spatial, Body-Kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal and natural. Let’s be honest, if we all wish the best for our future children, how can we help them develop their intelligences with a unique textbook? They will need better resources in and out of the classroom, materials with which they can have a cascade of information and knowledge in many different forms. Audio, visual, and media support are offered nowadays by ICTs, but not only ICTs, also the creativity and ability of any teacher is required to deal with the daily live in schools because each child is different and each topic or subject can be approach from thousands of different ways. We, as teachers have the power to adapt the content for our pupils, make it easy for them to understand, and it requires a heuristic point of view, a creative form of working, and a background of knowledge about real resources that we can use to do it. What we want to highlight here is the clever eye of the teacher in a classroom, the teacher must be out of the fixed textbooks which forcing and driving the planning, organization, and the knowledge weekly, monthly and annually. Not only is the use of ICTs important but a great deal of creativity is needed for mastering the process of teaching-learning into a classroom.

THE DYNAMIC CONTEXT OF A CLASSROOM AND SCHOOLS where thousands of interpersonal interchanges take place among student and teachers is named “the social traffic of the classroom” (Jackson, 1966). Besides, Louis Cozolino made the foreword in the book The Invisible Class (Olson, 2014) in which he states the importance of pay attention to The Invisible Class. This idea highlights the thousands of neurological and human connection that take place in the classroom forming the context for teaching between student and teachers. This concept looks after the planning in a classroom and how schools should pay attention to emotions that each student has in class and how these emotions fly among individuals either in classroom or schools (Olson, 2014). Obviously, we cannot rely on the textbook as unique allied for us due to the emotional factors. A textbook is not flexible as we can be, a textbook has not the emotions that we can pose over a topic, a textbook is anything but useful if it is not managed wisely (here, we are to do it). A textbook has not had into account the multiple interactions created in a classroom because a classroom is more than few people speaking or doing exercises. Both teachers and children have emotions and feelings that make them unique as the classroom is (Olson, 2014).

From this point, we may consider how quick a teacher has to manage each question made by students, how to manage the rhythm of a classroom with every child having a different question for a unique topic. SO, how can we solve the questions each child arises? Of  course, if we have a unique textbook, the pressure from editorials arguing that use free resources are hacking (what means teachers are delinquent), and if we have to follow the organization and the planning set in a textbook (Adell , 2010). One this is clear, a textbook is not the answer and, it is way far to be a helpful tool, even though, editorials cannot accept that because they have not the power to conduct our lives as teachers. Whereby, the creativity, the free planning before hand’s curriculum and the flexibility that our planning must have, it is not possible to find it in a textbook.  It is in our hands and minds ready to be used, ready to be shared with others, ready to be useful for our student ready to be delivered worldwide and, of course, ready to push our student to this ocean full of wisdom, thanks, everyone who shares knowledge. we want to state that knowledge and the production of it must be free. Moreover, easy to share and flexible to model, not to mention, it is a necessity that knowledge must be as easily reachable for anyone as possible. Here, we are the future generation of teachers to carry out our magnificent planning which will serve as an example for others, full of creativity, new ideas, and ingenuity, and devised to squeeze the best part of our pupils. By thinking out of biased textbooks, which only serve  the interest of politics and editorials, we can help students, letting them go deeper in a specific subject or topic, loading them with strength and passions and, letting for them the doors to learn open wide.

PESTALOZZI ARGUED THAT THE CHILDREN ARE EAGER TO LEARN, keen to discover the narrow corners of this world (Château, 1956). Thus, a methodology in which textbooks are the only tool to manage the school life must not be taken into account. On one hand, we must be ready to accept in any given moment a possible change in our planning, due to the fact that children can choose to go deeper into a given topic and to do that a textbook only helps to change a page for another (not so special I could say). On the other hand, a good connexion to the Internet might help us, and a method used from others could be useful as well. But it is important not to forget the key fact; we, the teachers, because if we assume that textbooks (with their content alone) are useless, then we must understand that ICTs are nothing without our abilities to make them useful for children. It is not about burying textbooks and fill schools with technology, it is about how we use different resources and technology, more accurately we should say TPACK, or technological pedagogical content knowledge, which is a framework of work in which teachers combine this three elements to manage, adapt and show a given topic for students (Mishra, 2009). This idea shows with hard evidence what kinds of abilities a good teacher must master, of course, far from the old-fashioned textbooks.

TO SUM THINGS UP, we could say the week was great and all of us have learn a great amount of things, from how editorials manage the official knowledge which is made in benefit of dominant class, politics interests tied to editorial textbooks creations, the distorted reality in textbooks because government wants to conceal the darkest past or present of a country, even the voice of teachers praying for liberty when using new tools and methodologies in blogs. So, as a future teacher we think this was a great week, a week that has sparked in our inside a flame, a crave to hit this educational-political-editorial hegemony, to hit them hard, in the stomach. We are aware how big they are, but they don’t seem to realize how the power of shared-knowledge is growing. In fact, every moment they waste in summits praying for government regulations against sharing knowledge. A superb amount of information and knowledge is not only created but also shared throughout the world. Just a word comes to my mind:   PASSION-KNOWLEDGE-LIMITLESS.

References:

Adell, J. (2010). Carta a los editores de libros de textoJordi Adell (@jordi_a): edu & tec. Retrieved 14 March 2016, from http://elbonia.cent.uji.es/jordi/2010/06/06/carta-a-los-editores-de-libros-de-texto/
Adell, J. (2011). Lecturas sobre libros de textoJordi Adell (@jordi_a): edu & tec. Retrieved 14 March 2016, from http://elbonia.cent.uji.es/jordi/2011/07/18/lecturas-sobre-libros-de-texto/
Apple, M. W. (2010). CULTURAL POLITICS AND THE TEXT. Routledge, 42-60.
Château, J. (1956). Los Grandes Pedagogos. Paris: Fondo de cultura Económica.
Crawford, K. (ND). Researching the Ideological and Political Role of the History Textbook -. 1-6.
Jackson, P. W. (1966). The student’s World. The elementary School Journal, 345-357.
Mishra, M. J. (2009). What Is Technological Pedagogical Content. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 60-70.
Olson, K. (2014). The Invisible Clasroom. Relationships, neuroscience & Mindfullnes. New York: W.W Norton & Company.
Saha, L. J. (2011). Sociology of education.”21 Century Education: A Reference Handbook.SAGE. Australian National University.
Santrock, J.W. (2011) “Educational Psycology” 5th Edition, New York: McGraw-Hil

Needless to say, the portfolio was evaluated (not only rated) enthusiastically, and I strongly invite you to give out their work (especially the reflections included) on their final eportfolio http://friskyhedgehogseportfolio.weebly.com/.

And why I take advantage of their job to fill my blog? uh!  because for several reasons:

  • Because it has a beautiful CC License,  I take advantage of their knowledge :-).
  • Because the reflection is very good, especially from the perspective of a  future teacher, so I used to bring one of my favorite topics to blog: the dark side of textbooks.
  • Because having students as them, is a gift (I have more, and I’m very proud of what we do in class, all because they do :-)) and when they do work of this quality I do not want more than show it (hopefully you visit their portfolio) and learn from them.
  • Because we (lecturers) complain a lot about the lack of reflection, but I still think that much of what we need has to do with not define what reflection means; so, when they (or we) want to think, the majority of them do not go beyond “elaborate descriptions”.
  • Because I questioned a lot about what we do not ask them more, why we do not give them more, why we do not encourage them more…

Thank you guys, thank you very much.

Performance Roles Reinterpreted

Those who you spend some time around here, maybe you remember than in subjects in which I teach, we work in groups and use performance roles. I told here some time ago in this blog post about roles.

As I told you then, results have been diverse, but I still use them because the students’ work is very rich… at least have told us and gives me the impression.

However, as we told you in previous works, sometimes afraid not always get organizing the experience for students to be aware of what is required in each role, the essence of their performance.

Even when they give instructions, we know that students make their own interpretation of the instructions and they build their own idea of what to do (back to Sellander, 2008).

So this year, in one of the activities, I have asked students to make a video (30 “) in which they show to other colleagues, the 10 keys to achieve each of the roles in the best way possible.

Here are the results:

Journalist

Facilitator

Curator


Star



Translator

Analyst

In almost all cases I think the essence of the work is clear, although I confess that analysts have been not as precise as I would like -it is no so rare, considering it is undoubtedly the most complex-role-. I will have to work more on defining the role and make some activity so that it is better specified.

As always, thanks to my students that make all this possible 🙂

Selander & the #Rict1516 Fair

On May 17th, we celebrated -my students and myself, in the hall of the faculty, a new edition of our “Fair of Technology Enhanced Didactic Activities”. As you probably remember, last year we invite you to come 🙂 and after that, we show you a little of what had happened there.

This year, in addition to telling a bit of the story, I want to take advantage of this blog post to emphasize the rationale of that “show”, beyond its playful nature, the idea of being together and doing the students’ work more visible, as well as opening windows reality on the walls of our classroom.

I want to do it, because sometimes, the “lights” and “lanterns” of the fair, do not let us see everything that is an “event” like this, and maybe, make this reflection would help me to organize my thoughts and, who knows, maybe, this would encourage you to give me better ideas to improve it.

The Fair was created with the intention of serve as event presentation of the students’ work, but with the difference that, in this time, the work is assessed but not graded, i.e., is an event in where the goal is, specifically, to conduct a formative evaluation of the work (this is the final work of the course). Both by the teacher of the subject that gives feedback one to one to all groups, about all jobs; by other classmates that are passing by the exhibitors; by other students of the faculty who pass; as well as by other teachers of the faculty that can approach.

After the event, I put a “mark” (the 10% of the final grade for the course) for his staging of the work at the fair (effort, organization exhibitor, and exhibition, etc.), but they still have 2 and a half weeks to finish, profiling and “round up” their activity before the final submission of it for final summative evaluation and, of course, for the qualification.

This idea fits with the notion of The Secondary Transformation Unit, in the Learning Design Sequences described by Sttaffan Selander in his 2008 paper, and summarized quite well when he says::

A sequence starts when the teacher introduces a new task and sets the conditions for the work. The Primary Transformation Unit then entails the interpretation of the task and the setting, and the process of transformation and formation of knowledge – by way of different modes and media. The Secondary Transformation Unit starts with students presenting their work. If the goals, as well as the expectations of the process and the product, are clearly defined and explained in the beginning, both students and teachers will have a powerful tool for reflection and evaluation. During the whole sequence, teachers make interventions and have the possibility to reflect on the signs and indications of learning that occur during the process. (Selander, 2008: 15)

Thus, Selander represents the complete sequences bellow

"Learning Design Sequences". Sellander, 2008.
“Learning Design Sequences.” Selander, 2008.

It is, as we told you last year in the JUTE (Castañeda, Adell & Llopis, 2015), getting foster “a second part of learning, beyond the feedback of the task; getting a third phase in which the possibility of remaking the task under the light of that feedback, as well as reflect on what was learned in the process”, get to think and rethink what we are creating, allow us to learn more and better.

We’ll see 😉

REFERENCES:

Selander, S. (2008). Designs for learning: A theoretical perspective. Designs for Learning, 1(1), 10-23 Disponible en http://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.5

Castañeda, L. Adell, J. & LLopis, M.A. (2015). Cinco años de reflexiones y diálogos docentes a propósito de la asignatura de Tecnologías Aplicadas a la Educación. Comunicación presentada a las JUTE 2015. Badajoz, mayo de 2015.

By the way! If you want to see how was the show this year, here are some of super-dinosaur footprints:

Tools on the Bloom’s eyes

If you’ve been here sometimes before, surely you shall know that I do not think that, after 60 years since its publication, we have to keep -“almost with devotion”- looking at the famous “Bloom’s Taxonomy” (here’s the explanation http://www.lindacastaneda.com/Mushware/nobloom /).

However, when I’m asking my students to design an ICT enriched educational activity, where ICT could do more than decoration, and also where they could get from their future students, much more than repetition or identifying, I find tremendously useful the approach to ICT from the Bloom’s Taxonomy perspective, but Bloom’s understood as a list of “thinking skills”.

As a final artifact of that exercise to start thinking about how to develop higher order thinking skills using ICT (Wow! indeed this is the goal), I have taken this year “borrowed” an idea that I saw in the educatorstechnology Blog , and I have asked to my students if they would find a tool of the web 2.0, and would propose an activity they could design with that tool that helps to develop each Bloom’s Taxonomy thinking skills (at least one activity for each thinking skill), and if they would express the list, creating a table / infographic / image that gathers together.

Now it’s time to share them with you on the Pinterest board where we have put together and, hopefully, over the years can be made larger.


 

My GITE’s Seminar: Basic readings about Educational Technology Vol. 1.

For some years, GITE has been conducting seminars in which each of us shares with the other members of the group, something of what concerns us, what we are working on, or what attracts our attention in the last times of our professional life.

Particularly, I have to confess that I always have the impression of not having read everything that I could about educational technology. So, when I saw the compilation made by my host at Oxford University Chris Davies and Rebbeca Eynon’s “Educational Technology” (Editing by Routdledge in 2016), and I had the opportunity to review the content index, I understood that it was a wonderful.

It is not a normal book, it is a book that includes a selection of the most relevant articles that can give you an initial perspective about ET. That is to say, it is not a matter of who invented the wheel, and of which are the fundamental bases to understand the development of that wheel; It does not include the initial article of all topics, but sometimes includes later articles that reflect some of the discussion that provoked that topic.
Obviously, like any selection other experts will find it to be improved, but I think it is quite good.

The book includes four complete volumes, and I decided that I would dedicate my GITE seminars to introduce each one of them, in a form of commented readings seminars.

So, on this occasion and to begin with I have dedicated to Volume One which include the following documents:

Part 1: Perspectives on the Nature of Technology and its Place in Human Lives in the Modern World

  • Langdon Winner, ‘Do Artifacts Have Politics?’, Daedalus, 1980, 109, 1, 121–36.
  • Castells, ‘Informationalism, Networks and the Network Society: A Theoretical Blueprint’, The Network Society: A Cross-cultural Perspective (Edward Elgar, 2004), pp. 3–48.
  • Martin Oliver, ‘Technological Determinism in Educational Technology Research: Some Alternative Ways of Thinking About the Relationship Between Learning and Technology’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2011, 27, 15, 373–84.

Part 2: Forming and Configuring the Field of Educational Technology

  • Seymour Papert, ‘Computers and Computer Cultures’, Mindstorms: Children (Basic Books, 1980), pp. 19–37.
  • Larry Cuban, ‘Computers Meet Classroom: Classroom Wins’, Teachers College Record, 1993, 95, 2, 185–210.
  • Richard E. Clark, ‘Media Will Never Influence Learning’, Educational Technology Research and Development, 1994, 42, 2, 21–9.
  • Hank Bromley, ‘The Social Chicken and the Technological Egg: Educational Computing an the Technology/Society Divide’, Educational Theory, 1997, 47, 1, 51–65.
  • Kenneth R. Koedinger, John R. Anderson, William H. Hadley, and Mary A. Mark, ‘Intelligent Tutoring Goes to School in the Big City’, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 1997, 8, 30–43.
  • Anohina, ‘Analysis of the Terminology Used in the Field of Virtual Learning’, Educational Technology & Society, 2005, 8, 3, 91–102.
  • Czerniewicz, ‘Distinguishing the Field of Educational Technology’, Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 2008, 6, 3, 171–8.
  • Neil Selwyn, ‘Making the Most of the “Micro”: Revisiting the Social Shaping of Micro-computing in UK Schools’, Oxford Review of Education, 2014, 40, 2, 170–88.

Part 3: Foundational Theories and Perspectives on the Capacity of Technology to Transform Learning

  • Skinner, ‘Teaching Machines’, Science, 1958, 128, 3330, 969–77.
  • J. Gibson, ‘The Theory of Affordances’, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (Erlbaum, 1979), pp. 127–43.
  • Marlene Scardamalia and Carl Bereiter, ‘Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities’, Journal of Learning Sciences, 1994, 3, 3, 265–83.
  • Roy D. Pea, ‘Seeing What We Build Together: Distributed Multimedia Learning Environments for Transformative Communications’, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1994, 3, 3, 285–99.
  • Mercer, ‘The Quality of Talk in Children’s Joint Activity at the Computer’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 1994, 10, 24–32.
  • Crook, ‘Children as Computer Users: The Case of Collaborative Learning’, Computers and Education, 1998, 30, 3–4, 237–47.
  • James Paul Gee, ‘Semiotic Domains: Is Playing Video Games a “Waste of Time”’, What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy (Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), pp. 13–50.
  • Siemens, ‘Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age’, International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2005, 2, 1, 1–8.

 

Part 4: Theories of Learning and Teaching Underpinning Educational Technology Practice

  • Lev Vygotsky and Alexander Luria, ‘Tool and Symbol in Child Development’, in M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman, Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (Harvard University Press, 1978), pp. 19–30.
  • Fred S. Keller, ‘”Goodbye Teacher …”’, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 1, 79–89.
  • Lave, ‘Situated Learning in Communities of Practice’, in Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine, and Stephanie D. Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition 2 (1991), pp. 63–82.
  • Jonassen, ‘Objectivism Versus Constructivism: Do We Need a New Philosophical Paradigm?’, Educational Technology Research and Development, 1991, 39, 3, 5–14.
  • Anna Sfard, ‘On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One’, Educational Researcher, 1998, 27, 2, 4–13.
  • Pierre Dillenbourg, ‘What Do You Mean by Collaborative Learning?’, in Dillenbourg (ed.), Collaborative-Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (Elsevier, 1999), pp. 1–19.