Some thoughts at the start of the new module: IC2.
Innovation and Change 2.
In my TELIC adventure, a new chapter has started. Last Thursday, we started the new module IC2. IC2 stands for ‘Innovation and Change 2’. The main aim of the module is to ‘enable me to further develop my understanding of change management in relation to interpersonal and group aspects of change and to project management.’
I’m looking forward to my learning in relation with the tutors and the other participants. I’ve been giving this course a lot of thought the last few days. When working in the garden, when driving the car … when I’m disconnected. In a Dutch program some time ago, there was an interview with a professor Theo Compernolle. The conversation was about the illusion of multitasking. Our brain functions in linear processes, and we actually cannot multitask. ‘Disconnect to reflect’ are his words. Twitter followers, now you know the reason behind my reduced tweeting activities ...
At the startup of the new module, we received lot of information distributed through the wiki and in the first online Collaborate session. A lot of reading resources, summaries in PowerPoint presentations. This was a good start to construct my own learning path at the beginning of this module. Here’s what my disconnected mind came up with.
1. Reading, reading, reading
From all the reading resources I selected two to start with: the NMC horizon report 2014 because I believe that this will be very interesting for our ICT approach in my school. And secondly the book ‘Leading Change’ by John Kotter. I came across this video some time ago. It intrigued me but I never read the book. So, I decide to read this first. Honestly … it was also the very first book of the reading list that I could find in the library.
Next on my reading list are ‘Making Sense of Change Management’ by Cameron and Green (book is on the way), and ‘Schools That Learn’ by Peter Senge. Making Sense of Change Management is a classic, and it offers insights in a a lot of frameworks. This referential work is very promising and comprehensive, instead of focusing on one particular framework. Schools That Learn on the other hand focuses more on the contexts of educational transformation. It is a fieldbook for educators, parents and everyone who cares about education.
2. Comparison of some project management tools and pick one.
Objects and technologies are equal partners in networks and systems. When well designed, a technology translates a major effort into a minor one (Latour, 2005). We received some tips on the use of project management software. I tested some:
http://www.ganttproject.biz/download > I’m not interested in another installable application, I prefer a cloud-based one.
In my school, we work with Google Apps as a social learning system. Ideally, we work on our projects inside this system. Of these four none convinced me. Arguments? Not in Dutch. Not free, not open-source. Setup in Google Apps dashboard did not work. Only one project or limited five users in the free version.
This German project seems promising. I set it up on my own domain name. Since my innovation project in the workplace mainly involves external partners, I will test this one out in my workplace innovation.
Pro: ease of use; Dutch; not too complicated; basic features such as milestones, tasks, file sharing, time-tracking; agenda seem sufficient enough.
In the future, I will further investigate the necessary features and the design of good project management tools and setup something of my own in the current Google Apps environment. Probably some combination of shared Google Sites templates with Spreadsheet functionalities. Keep you posted.
In the meanwhile, we also have to prepare a small presentation on how we would realise the vision of this XP Doncaster innovative school. Working on this with Claire … Will share our presentation later.
My final writing assignment in the TEL2 module is submitted.
You find it here. It is about how Google Apps for Edu can be used as a Technology Enhanced Learning Environment (TELE).
What theories and literature exist that explain, predict, and/or guide the development and use of TELEs?
A specific question about existing literature and by intuition I was reminded of The International Handbook of Teaching ICT in Primary and Secondary Education. I knew this was in our library at school, but I had forgotten about it for some time (silly me).
OMG, what a revelation! Quite expensive, that must be said. 539.54 euro for over a thousand pages of literature around ICT in education. Yummie. Very useful for my final writing assignment, to say the least.
Framing IT Use to Enhance Educational Impact on a School-wide Basis - Peter Twining
Two I already came across:
4C/ID (four components Instructional Design) from Van Merriënboer
Conclusion: Amazed about the amount of research and literature "out there".
During our last session we discussed and read the paper about ‘Distributed Cognition’. Distributed cognition is a psychological theory that says that knowledge lies not only within the individual but also in the individual’s social 1 and physical environment. In this post I reflect on the paper.
Apart from the reflective blogpost, I will use the paper more in my final writing assignment on Google Apps for Edu and how it affects the learning process in my school. It is really an interesting paper, and (in my opinion) since it was published in 2000 a lot of the main ideas reoccur in other theories or pedagogical views (collective intelligence – situated cognition - artificial intelligence – connectivism).
At the end of the Collaborate session we were also asked to reflect and brainstorm about how we worked together, how it was for us to work in little groups. I remember that we all mentioned rather ‘technical’ elements of working together or feelings: the software we used (GoogleDocs, sharing Prezi), the language barrier, ‘very enjoyable’, ‘great adding on each others thoughts’, shared engagement, etc. Richard pointed out to us that we should think more about the underlying processes rather than on surface activities and results (cf. Vygotsky 2). What were the forces at work in our groups? Taking into account Vygotksy’s framework 3 and the crucial dialogue model of Johan Roels 4, I end up with following processes underlying our group work:
Interaction: we exchanged ideas in this Google Doc. This had a two way effect on our group members.
Dialogue: through an extra Collaborate session we shared thoughts, found value in each others points of view (appreciative understanding of opinions).
Communication: regularly e-mails were sent to make appointments and announcements.
Imagination: the sharing of the Prezi and the way Dave, Koen and Kieran used this tool fueled my own imagination.
Transformation: my final blogpost was a sum of the shared thoughts and experiences.
Remark about the mediative role of the tools: it is very interesting to see how we used Google Docs, Blackboard Collaborate and Prezi to mediate these processes. We should indeed be more aware of how we mediate (delegate) these processes to the technologies. We focus too often on the tech tools and artefacts while the underlying processes are easily taken for granted.
1. The term social refers to a characteristic of living organisms as applied to populations of humans and other animals. It always refers to the interaction of organisms with other organisms and to their collective co-existence, irrespective of whether they are aware of it or not, and irrespective of whether the interaction is voluntary or involuntary.2. http://bit.ly/1lzvK9Z
3. ‘Vygotsky (1962/1986) held that learning is embedded within social events, and learning occurs as a learner interacts with people, objects and events in the environment. Through interaction with surroundings and communication with others, internalization and learning occurs.’
Voogt, J & Knezek G. (eds 2008) International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education, Springer, p.253
4. Roels J. (2012) Cruciale Dialogen. Antwerpen, Garant. p. 29
I experienced all of them as a teacher and some of the TELEs I helped implementing (Google Apps).
Here is an overview of the TELEs used:
In previous post for Wiki Task 2 I ended up with the following scheme.
Green are enabling factors.
Red are hindering factors.
Critical reading number 4 is this paper ‘Distributed
cognition: Toward a New Foundation for Human-Computer Interaction Research’ 1
The main idea in the paper is the following: cognition happens inside and outside humans, the theory says that ‘cognitive activity is constructed both from internal and external resources, and that the meaning of our actions is grounded in the context of the activity.’ 2 This in contrast to more traditional cognitive theories that focus more on the mental activity with the individual. Distributed cognition encompasses interactions between people ánd with resources and materials in the environment. When technology is well designed, the technology becomes integrated into the way people think, see and control activities.
The authors also want to provide an integrated approach/framework for research that combines ethnographic observation and controlled experimentation as a basis for design of digital work. When designing digital materials you should take into account this idea of distributed cognition. If not, you simply re-design the old model.
Let me try and make the main idea and the framework for design clear to you with two examples.
But first, important to understand the meaning of the words … What is ‘cognition’ actually?
Cognition is the mental process of ‘knowing’, including awareness, perception, reasoning or judgment. As Charlie Palmgren says it: ‘Cognition is the mental process used when modifying, inventing, constructing and transforming our mental models. It uses existing knowledge and new information generated through awareness and appreciation.’3
Mobile technology and feedback
‘Just as a blind’s person’s cane or a cell biologist’s
microscope is a central part of the way they perceive the world, so well-designed work materials become integrated into the way people think, see, and control activities, part of the distributed system of cognitive control.' 4
So, likewise (although the comparison with the blind man is a bit off track), my smartphone and tablet are fundamental devices that are integrated in the way I think and work. For example giving feedback to students’ work on GooglePlus is much more easier, effective and instant than when using a PC when I log in in the evening. Or how sharing some thoughts on Twitter, helping some tweeps or picking up some new information on Twitter, is essential for how I perceive my job as an educator. The meaning of my actions is shaped by the mobile techology.
Design digital material
We too often see information and cognitive activity as lineair. From point A, over point B to point C. This is not how we cognition works. For example the way we use the browser: scrolling back and forth between pages to find information. Pad++ is an experimental software system to support exploration of dynamic multiscale interfaces. It provides zooming and panning with structured information to create a dynamic way of browsing. The software allows you to exploit computational mechanisms effectively. In tasks requiring returns to prior pages, users of PadPrints (based on Pad++) completed tasks in 61.2% of the time required by users of the same browser without PadPrints. 5What does this mean for the design of learning materials? Consider distributed cognition when you think of learning materials and start designing it. It will (at least) make you wonder about how we use technology to shape our mental models. Instead of using new technologies to develop old-style-learning-materials such as the ‘Bordboek’. A ‘board-book’ is an interactive handbook developed by educational publishers. An example via this link. But let’s be honest: this is still so teacher centred, and does not take into account the dynamic relations between people and their (mobile) technologies, nor the way young people contruct their mental models.
1. J. Hollan, E. Hutchins and D. Kirsch.
2. p.179, last but one paragraph
3. Charlie Palmgren, not published.
4. p. 178, second paragraph from the top
You’ve worked on a number of assignments, you have been developing some kind of (digital) product … And after some days, or after having seen twelve interesting tweets on the subject, you start doubting your work of a few days before? Not that is is per se bad or entirely wrong, but there is so many information out there. Consequence of the information overload, I guess.
Anyway, in this post I wrote about some criteria for evaluating a technology learning environment. I found it important to build upon the definition of p21.org. My line of thought was that a good definition should automatically point towards the criteria.
Then I came across this (pragmatic and elaborate) list of criteria for online courses. It was actually sitting in my Diigo library for some time. Waiting for the right time to pop up. Couldn’t it have popped up a week or two earlier? :-)
In Wiki Task 1 - here and here - we looked at what Technology Enabled (Enhanced) Learning Environments (TELEs) are. The next step is to look at criteria for evaluating if and when a technology is a good TELE. Criteria are one of the most fundamental elements of making a high quality decision. Simply put, criteria are the way that you define success for a specific decision.1
Considering my definition in previous post, “Technology Learning environments are digital structures, tools, and communities where students and educators find inspiration and draw upon resources to make sense out of things, where they connect and construct meaningful solutions to problems in the 21st century.” the criteria by which TELEs can be evaluated, are/should be included in this definition.
- TELEs feed inspiration;
- TELEs provide resources (easily);
- TELEs enhance ‘meaning making’ on those resources;
- TELEs make it easy to connect to others (humans and nonhumans);
- TELEs enable problem-solving for relevant 21st Century problems.