Any views expressed within media held on this service are those of the contributors, should not be taken as approved or endorsed by the University, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University in respect of any particular issue.
A learning space is a prepared environment where the student can interact, play and learn from it. We can find a learning space in real life, however, I am thinking in a place that is designed, it pretends to simulate the real world in a challenging but also no-threatening way. It is a safe space of not judgment and where the student can feel free to investigate and challenge their abilities with the support of materials and knowledge.
I like the Reggio Emilia view that considers the physical space as the third teacher. I could try to say it with my own words, but I think this quote of Loris Malaguzzi is a perfect description of what I understand for a learning space, what should have and be.
We value space for its power to organize, promote pleasant relationships between people of different ages, create a beautiful environment, bring change, promote options and activities, and its potential to unleash all kinds of social, affective and cognitive learning.All of this contributes to a feeling of well-being and security in children.We also think that, as has been said, the space has to be a kind of aquarium that reflects the ideas, values, attitudes and cultures of the people who live in it.
As you read in my last post I was debating myself about what kind of bot would “build”. After some thoughts, I have decided to go for the grammar helper – The cheatBot. I have to confess that I would like to have had a much better idea, more original, but this is what I have :).
I am currently not teaching, and my last job was as a Spanish teacher as a second language, so I used this experience to get inspired and thinking about what I would have liked to have at my disposal when I was teaching. The context then is a bot that would be used by adults, particularly professional adults that are studying Spanish for their personal life or to work. All of them feel comfortable using technology and have smartphones. Class is small, no more than 15 students and all of them are quite motivated to learn (ideal class!), however, classes are late in the day, after their work and the class needs to be dynamic, useful and playful in order to get their attention.
The bot I am imaging would solve small questions about Spanish grammar. For example, when a student gets stuck expressing (oral or writing) a sentence because doesn’t know if a verb is regular or irregular. Or maybe the student wants to check the conjugation of a specific verb. Maybe wants some examples of how the conjugation is being used or wants a quick evaluation of a sentence that they have produced. The bot will give a quick answer and the student will not have the need to ask the question to the general class. Obviously, the chatbot can be used when the student is by themself.
The impact in the role’s teacher is that the class can be focused on general matters, and not specific and individual questions. That way, the teacher can spend the time in class in group activities that involve conversations or listenings. The teacher is able to invest time answering a more complex question. Solving problems that require a further explanation that just a grammar check. (I am imagining explaining the different cases of irregular verbs, or why in Spanish we have to verbs to express “to be”). That way, the student can solve easy/quick questions with the bot and prioritise the class to solve difficult challenges.
I understand that the student can get this piece of information from different resources, a grammar book, or asking Google directly. However, by using the specific bot that teacher has created (or at least helped to design and create) students and teacher are also having contact. By using this bot the teacher guaranteed the veracity and reliability of the resource that student is checking, and if there is an error/mistake we could say that is “teacher’s fault”. As a student, sometimes, we get lost in the vastness of the internet. There is so much information and resources to check that one can get lost. having this chatbot a student can feel secure that the answer is verified and curated by the teacher and they can rely on it. Teacher and students must trust in it and probably here is where we see the ethical implications. It is necessary to establishing transparency in the bot’s purpose.
I have spent too much time deciding what kind of bot I would like to prototype. As I mentioned in a previous post, I was considering different ideas (FQA, math problems, grammar helper…). I realized that I was considering two types of bots, based on two different approaches.
One scenario would be “building” ca bot similar to the ones we have checked on Twitter. These kinds of bots don’t have a real bidirectional interaction. These bots are based on a code that tweets something every X time. For example, the one I talked about in the other post from the museum. We can see how this kind of bots are exposing a topic, publishing tweets with a concrete topic and there is no interaction with people that reads it. The majority of bots we have found as a class are in that direction, probably because the Twitter platform stimulates this particular use of bots.
Considering this approach, I liked the idea of having a bot that tweets problems that students would solve. Maybe instead of mathematical problems itself, the bot would tweet riddles where the knowledge of mathematics is needed, to make it more playful and nicer than a typical mathematical problem. Students could check the message – riddle and use a hashtag to expose their ideas and possible solutions.
A second scenario I have been thinking is a more interactive bot, where students can ask and get answers. Maybe this bot is more sophisticated and would need more code knowledge behind, but also are probably richer and can be really considerate a teacher bot*, as we see in the article of Bayne S. (2015). Teacherbot: interventions in automated teaching, and their “botty”. In these bots we see how a student or, the bot itself, can start a short conversation tha will trigger a level of learning.
In my idea of having a grammar helper bot (to support the learning of a second language), we can imagine how a student would ask a question related to a grammar doubt, for example: Tell me what is the conjugation of past simple for the verb to sign. The chatbot will understand the query and will give a correct answer. Therefore, the bot we could offer a sentence as an example of the use of this conjugation. Also, we can be more ambitious and the student would ask the bot to check the grammar of a short sentence.
Considering these two broad types of chatbots I wonder if there is (or it will helpful to have) a categorization that defines the complixity of the bot, how is the interaction between student-teacher-bot, and how this has a real impact o enhanceing the role’s teacher.
Have to admit that I was quite surprised to see that we should spend some time investigating bots as a teaching tool, I didn’t find the connection at the first, or second thought. Actually, I was surprised that bots are a hot topic still. Even my husband co-founded a start-up based on messaging and chatbots, I never thought bots could be used for people or helping in education. (I know, I know… ignorant alert!)
Until this week, I was not following bot on Twitter, for example, and I was not conscious of using it as a useful tool. Now, I would say that see their potential to encourage learning. I discovered that many museums are using Twitter bots to promote their collections. I can see how this can help people with limited resources and time to know and explore museum objects without leaving you home. Considering how is the world right now, that is very interesting…
But bots are not only useful when we have limited access to hove physically to the museums, for example. They can also play an interesting role when teachers want to introduce a topic, motivate students, and let them get familiar with a subject. Teachers can use it to introduce a future cultural visit. Using it to introduce new exhibitions related to the topic they are talking about in class, or maybe to spark interest. It was not on my to-do list, but after finding the MNAC (Museu Nacional d’Art de Catalunya) and checking some of their twits, I am looking forward to going.
As I have exposed, I see some interesting uses of having bots in class, but don’t think I am seeing all the potentiality of them… Are bots a basic AI that could substitute or at least transform the task of a teacher? Difficult to see that. I can imagine a chatbot that gives mathematical problems that students need to solve, or maybe a history bot that explains important facts. Maybe a foreign language bot that helps with grammar? After this first week, I definitely can project some opportunities of using bots when teaching. However, for me, this is so far from having a robot or automated teacher.
On the other hand, when I think about bots (or simple AI/robots) in education, I cannot stop myself from connecting the thoughts with collecting data and data analysis. At the end of the day, AI or an algorithm is using information stored in a specific database. Can we trust the data bots are using? If we begin to trust bots, without fact-checking, there is the potential risk for malicious misuse of information from those with the capability, and desire, to hack official information. We assume that teachers have some bias, but we also trust that if a teacher is in front of a class it is because they passed a trustful test (maybe an interview, exams, recognition from people of the community…). As a society, we have established some mechanisms of quality, control, and trust. Obviously, we can challenge them and question their utility and how they are formulated, but still, there is some QA process there. What is the control for bots? Why we should trust them? or what can be the protocols to make them more trustworthy?
Owston et al’s article claim to contribute a better understanding of the correlation between students’ perceptions of lecture capture and their academic performance. The paper focuses its analysis on higher education and the study is made in a single university.
Based on previous studies, the article aims to point out the impact of the lecture recording on the learning of university students, their attendance at face to face classes, and their grades. The study is reinforced by clear figures that are intended to validate their study as well as their conclusions and correlations. I appreciate that even I struggle to highlight the strengths of the article, I recognise that the authors make an effort to recognise their limitations as well as presenting different resources to bolster their conclusions, using previous studies with similar context.
As a reader, I can have a good general idea of the reality of lecturer recording (in 2011), and see some unexpected results of the impact on the students’ performance. I guess that in 2011 the literature about the use of lecture recording was limited and Owston et al were able to find some correlations and ideas associated with the frequency of viewing and their academic performance. In the paper, there is an effort to give value to the lecture recordings beyond the bad or good influence it has on the attendance of the students, or their grades. Although, I found their suggestions quite underwhelming and with a very essentialism ideology, I want to believe that research in this perspective offers some opportunities for learning, or at least, opens new questions for further studies.
I found many methodical errors in the article. First of all, there is a clear ideology toward an instrumentalist outcome. The five questions formulated in the paper are showing a clear essentialism bias, where the main assumption is that lecturer recording will have a good impact, improving academic performance. In this way, giving an enchantment power to the technology without questioning nothing else. Also, there is a lack of critique and questioning about the results and the study itself, that resonates a lot with Bayne article we read last week.
For me, it is difficult to see how the authors can compare two situations where you have many variables changing and not a fixed context. for example, in the article, they mention a comparison between classes with recording and without it. I see many variables here that are not fixed: the subject, the teacher, the difficulty, the classmates, the schedule. Their findings are supported by other articles, however, there is a lack of clear research methods. The figures, correlations, and assumptions made are difficult to swallow. I am missing a clear research question and hypothesis about what the researchers are looking for.
When I started reading the article, I expected to have a clear image of what is understood for lecturer recording and a description of what can be the pedagogical goal. Instead, we find a poor definition and examination of what is a lecturer recording and lack of complexity and critique about it.
For example, when the authors suggest that high achievers, who watched the recordings fewer times, is because they were only reviewing or checking the content. In my opinion, the authors made an arbitrary correlation here. Maybe high achievers have professional/personal background that helps to understand the content better, or maybe they have a study group, or maybe they found a better video that explained the lecturer, or etc. There are so many possible answers, and I found it quite irresponsible to make a suggestion in only one direction.
Furthermore, I think the data used is quite small, also only is used a single university. Probably the study was relevant considering the date of the publication. However, I think the fact students are the ones reporting the majority of the information it losses credibility. I would like to see more reliable data.
Overall, I didn’t enjoy the article because of the lack of gruelling. But as a conclusion, I would say that this article offered me the opportunity to see a clear instrumentalist approach to the use of technology and allowed me to understand better concepts that were discussed last week, and it helped me to fix concepts.
Owston, R., Lupshenyuk, D., and Widemand, H. (2011). Lecture capture in large undergraduate classes: Student perceptions and academic performance. Internet and Higher Education, 14, pp.262-268.
Hamilton, E., and Friesen, N. (2013). Online education: a science and technology studies perspective. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(2), pp. 1-21.
Bayne, S. (2015). What’s the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning’? Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1), pp. 5-20.
Edwards, M., and Clinton M. (2018) A study exploring the impact of lecture capture availability and lecture capture usage on student attendance and attainment, pp. 403–421.
Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL), has to date, been limited by perspectives employed by various research studies in the field. As we have seen in the Hamilton and Freisen’s (2013) article, essentialism and instrumentalism are critiqued as problematic because they pass over the social aspect of learning. We see the same tendency on Bayne’s article (2015) where is highlighted the fact that relation between education and tech tools are not well defined. Definition of technology is poorly and leads to a digital “black box”. I found interesting that in the forum it has been a conversation about what is considered technology, and how should be described. Clearly there is on going issue when defining technology.
Both articles claim for more critical understanding of TEL. Assuming that technology develops and evolves in response to a social and educational needs. Education, is also about the social context and experience, like Baynes points out (p. 10). It is an outcome and enjoyment of, networks and relationships (p. 11). We don’t necessarily want or need to ‘remove human limitations’ (p. 13).
For Bayne is important to define “enhancement”, what is the real meaning? I found this very important and the key question. First of all we need a definition agreement, if not discussion is quite useless. I found common to start a discussion where the subject of the discussion is not well defined and people have different understanding. What do we mean when we are talking of enhancement education? Making it better? what’s better? Better as a definition of making easier for more people? or faster? more equitable? better in terms that everyone can achieve similar goals?
From a Transhumanist perspective we can understand better as a synonym of improving the human body and brain. We could just upload a system to our brain or maybe take a pill and be able to speak another language in a few seconds. Or at least have more potential in our brain to learn everything we can faster. That is another question for me, Is “enhancement” the obtaining the max potentially of our brain? or is adding an extra plus of capacity?
I want to think that the main of education is not getting a particularly result. Of course, there are exams, tests, degree and titles, but this is another story. I like to think that the main goal of education is learning, that is the goal by itself. Each individual has their own path and riches their own learning achievements. I want to think that education is more than just having some knowledge and specific skill, otherwise is pure instrumental view, isn’t it?
As it has been raised in the forum and also the collaboration session, maybe we need more real world examples in order to make a clear idea. I have tried to think in real world exemples, but my mind goes directly to movies and books, I actually found that there is a wikipedia page dedicate to Transhumanist literature )
Enchancment means better performance? Are these the correct questions? We should be discussing about good/bad or better? As Bayen pointed there is a need to go farther, where transhumanism search for making humans and humanity better and more dominant, critical posthumanism asks us to think again about what is problematic in essentialising and what it means to be human and how we understand the world.
————
Hamilton, C.E. & Friesen, N. (2013). Online Education: A Science and Technology Studies Perspective. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. 39 (2): 1 – 21
Bayne, S. (2015). What’s the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning’? Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1), pp. 5-20.
Peach, H.G. Jr & Bieber, J.P. (2015). Faculty and Online Education as a Mechanism of Power. Distance Learning.
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.
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.
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.”
For Bayne is important to define “enhancement”, what is the real meaning? I found this very important and the key question. First of all we need a definition agreement, if not discussion is quite useless. I found common to start a discussion where the subject of the discussion is not well defined and people have different understanding. What do we mean when we are talking of enhancement education? Making it better? what’s better? Better as a definition of making easier for more people? or faster? more equitable? better in terms that everyone can achieve similar goals?
