Author: s1690803

Hamilton and Friesen article

s1690803/ / Is that the future?, Weekly task

The article focuses in the essentialism and the instrumentalism as the main factors that prevent online education research from asking relevant questions than enable the core changes expected when digital networks emerged.

The article offers an introduction to those concepts and what is their approach to online education. Essentialism understand technology as a independent abstract subject with pedagogical value itself, while instrumentalism is presented as a bunch of tools which humans can operate in order to satisfy particular needs.

The article is very consistent in presenting essentialism and instrumentalism as the two main factors that limit the research in online education. Overall, the critique is well supported. They use previous articles that give credibility to their arguments, as well as using examples that facilitate the compensation of their claims. The examples are very good to illustrate the constructivist view in particular. These mundane examples helped me to understand the theory and principals behind.

When the authors present the main limitations of essentialism and instrumentalism, I expected a clearer critique of why these perspectives not offer the opportunity to grow in online education research. I would like to have more examples of why and how they are limiting the research and maybe more references that support and shows those constraints. Instead, I found a short description of how essentialism and instrumentalism understand new technologies, and the main focus was in how it is important to introduce a constructivist perspective.

I appreciate the fact the article presents clear reasons and arguments to introduce a constructivist view. This is something that I agree with the authors. However, I would like to know some benefits of the essentialism and instrumentalism. I believe that research in these perspective offers some opportunities of learning and answer interesting questions. In my opinion, the article has a very negative view towards both ideas. Even the article does not give much credit, I think I have learned that essentialism and instrumentalism perspective also need to be taken in account, and essentially understand when someone is basing their arguments from those perspectives.

As we have been seeing, the article focuses in essentialism and instrumentalism as main reasons why research has been prevented to develop. Reading the paper I wondered about other possible reasons, such as lack of technical knowledge on the part of the educational community. Can educational research formulates good question about technical/design aspects of the digital networks without coding or programming skills?

I have to admit that it has been a challenge and a difficult paper to read. I think that the language used and the structure does not facilitate the full understanding of the arguments. It took me several readings to capture the main points and understand all the elements presented. I found the article very condense and trying to explore so many factors. I got interested in some aspects that I would like to dig in, as the bias in the design and their consequences. On the other hand I was surprise that some ideas need to be raised, for example. “First, technical design is undertaken by people who do not leave their connection to the social world behind at the laboratory gates.(Hamilton and Friesen 2013 p.10)”

As a conclusion, I would say that this article offered me to understand that I tend to have a constructivist approach to the online education. I particularly enjoyed reading a similar question I formulated previously in the blog: What kind of future we want?

————
Hamilton, C.E. & Friesen, N. (2013). Online Education: A Science and Technology Studies Perspective. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. 39 (2): 1 – 21

Peach, H.G. Jr & Bieber, J.P. (2015). Faculty and Online Education as a Mechanism of Power. Distance Learning.

Technological choices? What kind of future do we want?

s1690803/ / Ideas and thoughts, Is that the future?

I am writing this post suggested just for the introduction of this week. I wanted to write my first ideas and thoughts before digging to the articles and the task, forum and the up coming virtual conversation.

I am the kind of person that wants to think that tools are not good or bad per se. I believe that it is what you decide to do with these tools that defines if an action is correct and the outcome is positive or not. Also, we should debate what is positive and good before that, any ways…

We are in the digital era. At this point, the debate about weather technology is good or bad is just too simplistic, and it does not have much value any more. I think the debate should go beyond whether the technology is helping or improving the learning process, at the end of the day we don’t have a choice. Technology is everywhere and it is here to stay.

As a society, we have achieved a level of technology where robots and AI are part of our routine. It is not science fiction any more. Because of that, teachers and professionals of education should be discussing what to do with that. What is the development we want to see in the field? To what extend can this development be enforced when things are changing dramatically.

I feel that there is a strong link between technology and privatisation of education. The truth is that new technologies and technological discoveries are coming from private companies. How will this affect education? This is a question that I want to open to my classmates in the forum. Even if I have had some thoughts about it, I don’t have a clear position, and I would love to read different opinions about it.

For a long time I thought that a public system was the solution to avoid biased practices and malicious interests. However, coming from a country with a high level of political corruption I am not sure about this any more. From the perspective of society,what is education trying to achieve? Is the school a place to prepare students to be ready for the future market. If that is the case, who knows better the market that big companies?

Or in the other hand, primary and secondary education are the place where students learn to socialize and interact? In that case, is the use of latest technologies actually necessary?

Are private interests more “obscure or immoral” than the public ones?

All these ideas reminded me one episode of The Simpsons, where a future alternative classroom is presented. In this scene we can see how “new technologies” are introduced in a classroom and are sponsored by a well known soda company . I find this reality terrifying!

Do are we ready to let private tech companies to take a big part of the education?

 

Aesthetics matter: interface design shapes learning.

s1690803/ / Weekly task

 

  • My  job as QA

I would say that I have always cared about aesthetic. When I was a child I cared that my work was ordered, inmaculate and I liked to present everything neat as a pin. I think with the pass of the years I have lost part of that perfectionism. However, this is a quality that has helped me to find a job in the tech industry. I care about details and process and that makes me a good Quality Assurance. Also, that job has brought me the opportunity to learn from other professionals that their main job is to take care of how things look and work. I work closely with UX and designers, and I have learn how the design and the position of elements are relevant for the users and how they will interact with the platform, this is crucial.

“Where academics are,rightly,asked to be well-versed in how to ensure accessibility of digital teaching resources to all students regardless of their specific learning needs, we are rarely asked to reflect on the every day design decisions we make as we carve learning spaces out of institutional LMS’s for our selves and our students”

I have learnt that having the power to create an interface gives better answers to your users, the communicate better with the platform and this something important, because it keeps them hooked, that is the main goal! It makes all the experience better. The authors of the Manifesto pointed out how usually teachers rarely have control of the LMS interface. I wonder if this is because of lack of knowledge? Maybe because all the LMS are predetermined programmes that not allow the enough customisation, companies don’t want educators to have this power? lack of resources? we should assume that teachers need to work closely with UX, designers and even developers in order to offer a good interface that can guarantee the needs of their students. Or do we prefer to pay a software that is already designed and we scramble to use it in an efficient way?

  • Sharpening pencils

When I got my first job as an educator of teenagers I had an older colleague that every day, after the activity with the group, he spent some time sharpening all the  pencils of the class. He spent time ordering by colours and making sure that all the material was well presented, specially the pencils were sharpen as new. I remembered I asked him why he was doing it? what was the point? he said: well, the guys are more cautious, calm and spent more time with the task when everything looks like new. Aesthetics matter!

Back them I learnt how important is to have a good presentation of materials. Motivation, creativity and expertise are important to teach a good class. Moreover, having great materials, clean and neat helps that the students to get evolved and feel more motivated to participate.

  • Toys and games

Another example where I am thoughtful about aesthetics is how I present toys to my son. I see how my he interacts with his toys and games depending how I present it to him. If everything is well organised, in order and a few things presented, he spends more time playing with them. I observe him and learn what he likes the most and what kind of toys he prefer to play. I take on consideration his preferences and I try to find other games that are related to the things he likes. At the same time, when he has been playing for some days and I want him to be more adventurous and try other things, I present other elements/materials I think he would enjoy. I prepare the space in a way he will find the new items in motivational way. I know that way, the new item will attract his attention and he will discover other things that can become the favourite one!

In general, he leads his day activities, he chooses if he reads a book, plays with a ball or paints. However, I know I have the power to condition his actions.

  • Structure of power

As is pointed out in the Manifesto, teachers have more  control of how users/students will interact with the interface. The teacher has the option to choose how to structure the interface and manage the information, for example, as the Manifesto suggested, considering the structure of the forum.

This first week of the programme, we all have experimented how the forum can develop. In this case we see how the structure is very open and all students are allowed to create new threads. Is this facilitating the communication and the sharing of knowledge? Honestly, in my opinion, it has been kind of chaotic. Many threads have been opened with a similar title/topic. Considering that the discussion was focused on the Manifesto, it would be easier if all the conversations about the same statement would have been together. I have felt a little bit lost and unable to follow conversations. I think this a great example of what the manifesto talks about.

  • Homogenization vs. individuality

It is pretty clear than aesthetic follows tendencies and fashion. The culture, context, era, everything has an influence in what we understand what is aesthetic or not. Obviously, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but there is a huge influence from the context on our perception. In that way, I feel sometimes we are trying to fit our work to the current standards. Some how, we are not respecting our individuality, or we are not being as much creative as we would like in order to follow the current moda.

If we assume that aesthetic has a significant influence in shaping education, we should be careful and refuse to create a learning process where students are not motivated to be creative, playful, original and respect their individuality.

 

Online teaching should not be downgraded into ‘facilitation’

s1690803/ / Weekly task

No? why? That was my first reaction when reading this fourth statement. What is wrong with “facilitation”?

When I started checking this point of the Manifesto I quickly linked it with an old debate and discussions I had my last year in uni when I heard about Sugata Mitra and his project of The Hole in the Wall. He has been trying to prove why teachers are necessary in the learning process, and if they can actually be replaced, or eliminated. I have to say, that Sugata Mitra doesn’t focus his studies on high education, actually that project for example is with children. And this is very relevant when reading the Manifesto.

While I was reading the manifesto I went to re-watch an old tedTalk of Sugata Mitra about the child-driven education concept. Actually child led learning process is something I am being very obsessed lately. This is something always had my attention, but now as a mother I am more invested on learning more and I have taken some short online courses to learn more. This is something and I truly believe, that the child should be the protagonist of their learning process and has control of the activity and the adult can adapt their language to gain learning and further the child’s development. (1) I basically think (though) that the adult is a facilitator of the process of learning, but the child/student is in control.

Considering previous thoughts about the process of teaching/learning, I would said:

  • Children (and I would say, everyone) learn what they are interested about.
  • If a teacher can be replaced by a machine, then they must be replaced. (Note: this is considering the theories and studies of Mitra)
  • Learning happens when there is interest.
  • If information is on the Internet, why do I want it in my head? (Do we understand learning as a process to get knowledge or to get skills and abilities, both?)
  • Motivation, encourage, support and love as the fundamental elements of the learning process.
  • We can learn by ourselves, but the information is retained when we discuss and interact with other people. We need others, but do we need that those others are experts (meaning teachers)?

Because all of that, my reaction to this 4th statement of the Manifesto, was like:

“The assumption that the individual student is an autonomous learner with a pre-existing, fully developed sense of individual agency and purpose leads to a shift in the perceived role of the teacher, who in ‘learnified’ discourses is often demoted from professional, expert provider to supporter and conduit for the self-determining inividual learner. Learners are assumed to be competent to navigate the complexities of learning in ways which best suit their ‘needs’, and can be best supported by making subject and discipline knowledge-objects available as efficiently as possible.”

What is really wrong with that? and why we believe that being a facilitator is a “demoted” of our profession as teachers? Is this a problem of perception of the language? is this, again a issue of not being English native speaker?  I was reading and I asking all this question! why, really why is a problem with learnification (Biesta 2012)?

Actually, I was convinced, I thought that good educator is the one that guides the process of learning, not the one who actually delivers. I believe that teachers are facilitators. They are responsible of creating the environment where the learning process can be developed, respecting the pace and motivations of each student. Can this be done if you are not a good expert on the subject? Because for me, only a good expert can become a good facilitator. I mean, a good teacher that knows a lot, is motivated and cares about the subject is the one that knows how to guide and create the environment where the learning happens.

I want to think that students know how to detect their needs. I still thinking that they are the ones who should take control of their learning process and be responsible with it. They should be “autonomous learner with a pre-existing, fully developed sense of individual agency and purpose leads “, and I think that if we don’t have these kind of students on higher education is because we haven’t allow them to take that responsibility during their previous educational years. Maybe everything has been regulated, and scheduled and students don’t know how to manage their own learning process? Maybe this is another story and it deserves another post, maybe in the future!…

After reading the arguments in the Manifesto and I have changed (a little) my mind. For me still very clear that facilitation role is not a problem on primary education, but is it the same on higher education? I am not that sure any more.Probably the level of expertise is more required when we are talking about higher education. Probably it is essential that the teacher is involved in constant research about the topic and can answer all the question the students have, not only being able to point where to find answers….

I guess for me it is not about using “teacher”, “expert”, “instructional designer” or “facilitator, is going backwards and asking ourselves what is the role of the person who will accompany the students in their learning process. But I agree that as the Manifesto pointed, is really important that the “teacher” role is not des-professionalised. And it is important that the role is not undervalued or perceived as something that is easy to automated or replaced.

“Movements in digital education which emphasise automation, scale and on-demand access often contribute to this de-professionalisation, making the delegation of the ‘teacher function’ to automated systems or an under paid,under-valued academic precariat seem supportable or even inevitable.”