Cloud Computing - some enlightenment

Hmmm... what I thought would be a small white fluffy solitary thing in the sky is turning out to be a complex, brooding all covering cumulo-nimbus!! Cloud computing covers such a range of services (software, platform, infrastructure) and so, for the context of the first assignment, I'll probably focus on SaaS as it's pertinent to my own professional context seeing as our school has just moved over to Google for Educators to host our mail and provide all staff with access to Apps. After reading the Brown (2000) article I did a bit more delving and trawled on to his website. There's an excellent youtube video of a speech he made recently at Indiana University (cited below). A lot of it repeats what he covered in the earlier article but he does clarify some of his ideas with excellent examples (his reference to architecture studio androgogy and the "lurking" which occurs there is particularly helpful). What's all this got to do with Cloud and SaaS I hear you cry... well I feel that a lot of what Brown envisages with regard to "communities of practice" can be played out using software like Google Apps which allows collaboration and participation across borders be they geographical, social or cultural. It all seems to lead towards connectivism (or does connectivism lead to Open Source and cloud? Chicken and egg?) which I'm not yet familiar with - but I need to be wary of jumping onto the bandwagon of a new learning theory, just because it's new. Incidentally, the Brown website also has some pretty scary (to me) working papers on Cloud Computing which others pursuing this area may find useful - I'm afraid there are too many technical acronyms for me to cope with - and I am happy but a little jealous to admit that Brown out-geeks me by far :-) Brown, J. S. (2000). Growing up digital: How the web changes work, education and the ways people learn. Change(March/April), 11-20.

Brown, J.S. (2009) Learning in the Digital Age - speech at Indiana University

Some thoughts on the digital immigrants/natives debate

My principal handed me a copy of the Prensky article last year and I devoured it and with a degree of naivety proclaimed it to be gospel, lamenting the 15 years or so I should have waited before being born. I've now read it with a more critical eye, and the benefit of a few masters papers under my belt (most usefully, one on Gifted Education) and I'm not so sure about the truths it expounds.

My biggest problem with it is the over-generalization of a whole generation. It's the same with critics who claim that boys are better at maths and girls are better at english: well, which boys and which girls? Jamie Mackenzie sums this up nicely here "Real fifteen year old humans are quite different from each other, a fact that Prensky did not take the time to study or notice.”

In my study of gifted education, it's all too clear that learners are (and probably always have been) an incredibly diverse bunch and require differentiated curriculum options to help them progress - this differentiation needs to happen for process, content and product (see Riley, T. (2004b). Qualitative differentiation for gifted and talented students. In McAlpine, D. & Moltzen, R. (Eds.), Gifted and talented. New Zealand perspectives (pp. 345-369). Palmerston North: Massey University for more on this). Moreover Howard Gardner's work on multiple intelligences would suggest that labelling a whole generation with one identity is somewhat simplistic.

Jamie Mackenzie also makes the valid point that Prensky's ideas have weak academic evidence to support them and I note that his Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 2 cites sources such as New York Times and Los Angeles Times which lack perhaps the academic rigour of peer reviewed journals.

My other problem is Prensky's view of "future" content which Mackenzie calls "vacuous". "“Future” content is to a large extent, not surprisingly, digital and technological. But

while it includes software, hardware, robotics, nanotechnology, genomics, etc. it also

includes the ethics, politics, sociology, languages and other things that go with them. " So Prensky contends - but what are those ethics and politics? He makes no mention of constructing knowledge (except perhaps his assertion that students should learn on computers they build themselves) and on the collaborative and connected nature of e-learning.

Having said all that, there is a degree to which I accept that today's learners are relating to the world in a different way due to their exposure to technology. I just think it's too early in the piece to make sweeping judgments as to what that new way of relating is.

In my own practice, some of my children certainly seem to be able to pick up new software and run with it relatively quickly. But there are others who need plenty of support to assimilate new ways of working, even with something like the basic word processor contained in Google Docs. Consider this from another DN/DI blog “students don’t really understand the technology any better than most adults, they are just less afraid of making mistakes”.

And what about me? Well, I had my first computer aged 15 (ZX Spectrum) and learned to program in Basic (just twee stuff like drawing random lines on the screen!!) but I still consider myself an immigrant if the term has any value. I prefer however to call myself a "digital open book", keen and ready to learn new ideas and new ways of doing things. I am not frightened of technology (only of the price...) and I believe that not paying attention is only reason to be out of touch with the latest trends and technology, it's got nothing to do with one's age. I am a physical immigrant to New Zealand but in the 10 years I've lived here I seem to have seen a good deal more of the place than many of my Kiwi friends. So maybe there are benefits to being an immigrant - if you have the motivation, perhaps you view the modern technological landscape with a more critical and appreciative eye than a native who may see the ubiquitous fresh and untouched spaces as not worth bothering with.

Come now Selwyn D (2008), don't be too hasty!

Just read the Selwyn* article and have mixed feelings about the views therein. He argues that the only real good to come out of Digital Horizons was mediocre ICT Cluster PD and the development of Cyber-Safety Programmes (p. 33). Whilst I agree that in order to really give e-learning a kickstart we need more radical policy making from central government which "rethinks the structures of schooling (curriculum, assessment as well as structures of time, space and power)" (p. 33), I do feel that Selwyn is being a little pessimistic about things on the ground. The article does briefly mention infrastructure improvements such as wider broadband internet access (Probe Project) and the TELA scheme but, I feel, does not give them enough kudos. The loftiest e-learning goals of any policy maker would not be able to come to fruition without adequate infrastructure and, given the rapidly changing nature of software, operating systems and hardware, I feel it's a little cynical to slam the goals of policy so hard when the goalposts are continually moving.

In applying Selwyn's analysis to the later "E-learning Action Plan" I can see some of the economic discourse coming through in the text. There is still reference to the knowledge economy and to how learners will benefit society and the economy in the future if they have a high level of ICT literacy.

However, there is a distinct flavour of collaboration and connectivity in this later policy. I believe this is due to the influence of the new NZ curriculum and, more specifically, the key competencies therein. The "Elearning action plan" seems to hold these key competencies (especially Participating and Contributing, and Communication) at the core of what it is saying. I think for my assignment I want to explore the key competencies, particularly those two, in greater depth to see how they can drive teachers' ICT use in the right direction.

Finally, I want to say that I feel a policy document like the eLearning Action Plan cannot and should not be critiqued in isolation. It really should be an umbrella document under which a whole host of consequential actions take place (including infrastructure development, rolling out of PD, and development of Professional Learning Communities to foster better "smart" ICT use in the classroom). The activities which arise as a result of the policy are what should be better critiqued and subsequently developed and although Selwyn does this when he reads "with" the document, in my view his analysis was too narrow in places.

*Selwyn, D. (2008). Business as usual? Exploring the continuing (in)significance of e-learning policy drives. Computers in New Zealand Schools, 20(3), 22-34

Creating a teacher who successfully uses ICT

Brown (1998) lists a range of attributes he believes makes a "good ICT-using educator" (p. 7). I'll list them and comment on how I feel we as teachers may best be able to develop them.

1. A well developed philosophy of teaching which is based on a contemporary and critical understanding of educational theory. The key for me on this one is the understanding of educational theory. This understanding can come from personally directed professional learning (such as doing this eLearning paper) or professionally organised learning. The latter is far more powerful as it involves multiple members of staff which creates the possibility for professional discussion and reflection - in short, it creates a professional learning community. Darling-Hammond and Richardson (2009) outline research which backs up the power of these communities to effect changes in practice and understanding.
2. General Pedagogical Knowledge. This can be developed through reflective practice, discussions with other professionals and observation of others' professional practice.
3. Subject Matter and Domain Specific Knowledge. Developed through personal reading/research and possibly attending targeted PD workshops. Increasingly, as we move from being teachers of content to teachers of process, I would like to see this also being developed through dialogue with students.
4. ICT General and Specific Content Knowledge. This I understand to be the ability to use the tools and the understanding of how they can be integrated. E.g. to use wordle.net in the classroom you need to go through a few stages of development. a) become aware of wordle's existence (SEE it), b) become proficient at using wordle yourself (OWN it), c) plan and discuss how wordle might be useful in enhancing student learning (UNDERSTAND it), d) implement its use in your programme (TEACH it), e) reflect on its success and improve its use for next time (HONE it). That makes quite a nice acronym of SOUTH which I may adopt as my own model for raising teacher awareness in the use of ICTs in the classroom.
5. Specific Curriculum Knowledge. This develops with an awareness of the new curriculum. i feel it is slightly less important than when Brown was writing as the new curriculum, especially at primary level, places less importance on specific achievement objectives and their coverage although these still have a place in planning and teacher understanding.
6. Strategic Contextual Knowledge. This can be developed by doing exactly what I am doing currently i.e. analysing the e-Learning landscape and making judgments on how to best navigate it. These judgments can be well-informed by looking back at past successes and failures.
7. A capacity for Self-reflection and self-criticism. Brown discusses both personal reflection and school-wide reflection saying it occurs on "both and intra- and inter-personal plane." (p. 8). As I mentioned in point 1 above, it is through the reflective nature of professional learning communities (PLCs) that the greatest development of growth will occur and I feel that educational leaders need to create structures as well as distribute the ICT leadership around the school to help these PLCs evolve in a formal and informal way.

As an ICT lead teacher, I am seeing the different range of responses to using ICT in the staff in my school. As a cluster we are currently grappling with how to encourage teachers to OWN their professional journey around ICT so that they become producers of their own learning as opposed to consumers of ideas promulgated by isolated "experts" around the school. It feels like a long road at this stage!

References

Brown, M. E. (1998). The use of computers in New Zealand schools: A critical review. Computers in NZ Schools, 10(3), 3-9.

Darling-Hammond, L. and Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher Learning. In Educational Leadership (source to be completed)

What Legacy has eLearning History left us?

This is just a post to share my thoughts on how the past has shaped the present and how the lessons from the past can help us shape the future. Brown (1998) and Campbell (2004) give different and detailed histories of important events in New Zealand's eLearning history. You can see these mapped on to a timeline here (hopefully I'll be updating this regularly).

The various documents and publications charted on the timeline have had some impact on eLearning in schools. Two of the early documents (Department of Education, (1986), Ministry of Education (1990) have stressed the importance of teacher PD. As a result of these the ICT PD contracts were established and are still in use today. Whether or not the contracts are successful as models of PD is another question.

Arguably, the rapid evolution of technologies available makes the shelf-life of ICT policy decisions relatively short. However, as Brown (1998) appears to advocate, if policy is more directed towards improving teachers' ability to use ICT, with discernment, to improve learning, as opposed to having an "overly technocentric focus" (p. 6), the impact of technological evolution should be more mitigated. Teachers who know how and when ICT enhances learning and when it doesn't should be able to embrace new developments more effectively for learners. Unfortunately, our legacy of research and policy up to the time of Brown's article does seem to focus more on the technology itself. Perhaps the impact of this is that until recently, schools' ICT policies were preoccupied with student/computer ratios and basic infrastructure development (server upgrades and wireless installation etc.) Whilst these are important foci for schools, I believe they are often at the expense of teacher PD which can result in great deal of expensive equipment gathering dust. I'll do another post connected to this one once I've read the Selwyn (2008) article which will hopefully give me a perspective on the last 10 years between the present and the time of Brown's article.

References

Brown, M. E. (1998). The use of computers in New Zealand schools: A critical review. Computers in NZ Schools, 10(3), 3-9.

Campbell, N. (2004). The vintage years of e-learning in New Zealand schools. The Journal of Distance Education, 8(1), 17-24.

Department of Education, (1986). Potential Benefits of Electronic Communication Technologies for New Zealand.

Ministry of Education, (1990). Report of the Consultative Committee on Information Technology in the School Curriculum.

Selwyn, N. (2008). Business as usual? Exploring the continuing (in)significance of e-learning policy drives. Computers in New Zealand Schools, 20(3), 22-34.