Making
space for student autonomy and content creation within the technology
enhanced classroom.
Well, the last two weeks have certainly been a doozy! For those unaware, doozy
is another one of those peculiar Southern Expressions that we country people
use all throughout Texas and the surrounding states. It’s an adjective used to
describe a range of activities that might require tremendous effort or have a
high level of difficulty. Doozy can also be used positively and negatively to
describe objects, observations and experiences that might be interpreted as
awkward or extraordinary. I can’t claim the etymological origin of this word to
be rooted in the South, but I’ve frequently heard my mother, relatives and strangers,
along with my 86 year old grandmother using this word since I was in baby shoes
so its probably another case of us country folk adopting a word and giving it
our own definition regardless of its true meaning. Ok, please forgive me for
venturing down that non-blog related tangent; we shall now get back to
business!
A number of the week 8-10 readings discussed the challenges of balancing
teacher presence within COI and methods for providing students more autonomy to
personalize their own learning interests, including the design of content and
the choice of which tools to use throughout this process. Don’t get me
wrong, I’m all for putting power into the hands of students and challenging
them to take responsibility for their own learning but I must say that
incorporating some of the ideas presented through the readings will pose a
daunting task.
In theory, I agree
that one of the positive outcomes of web and pedagogy 2.0 is, when properly
aligned with assessment objectives (teacher defined and institutional) there is
the potential to immensely enhance individual and group learning experiences
while de-formalizing the learning process and dialogue between teacher and
student. Ideally this allows for multiple role-plays, the expression of multiple
opinions and greater accessibility to non-text and teacher directed knowledge.
(McLoughlin & Lee 2010) I also agree that self regulated learning allows
students the chance to pursue content attuned to their personal interests which
increases their motivation, comprehension, quality of created products and
higher order thinking but I do have my reservations when it comes to viewing
pedagogy 2.0 as a cure all for creating student centered learning environments.
(Stubbe and Theunissen, 2008)
It
seems that web 2.0 and pedagogy 2.0 transfer the power (whether it be feeling
and being perceived as an authority figure, or having your thoughts, words,
time and commands honored and followed based on the consensus that this
knowledge holds value and is essential for success both in and out of the
classroom) of possessing knowledge and deposits it in the great unmanageable,
inconstant space (or at times, void) that is the student mind. I don’t mean
this literally, there is always something cooking in the minds of students. I
mean to say, when viewing the classroom as a giant group think where all
learners are striving to develop a similar set of skills, there are times when
nobody has a clue what they are doing either because they haven’t received
useful information related to the task or everyone is struggling to understand
what has been taught. So in these situations, which are frequent in some
classrooms, its a bit of a gamble to trust that students are aware of what is
best for their learning and believe that they know best how to pursue this
information.
If
this were a f2f conversation, I’m sure at this point you would like to
interject with some comments about the necessity of scaffolding and specific
methods for developing scaffolds and calculating teacher presence when using
Web 2.0 technologies so I intend to do just that!
McLaughlin & Lee suggest that in order for pedagogy and web 2.0 integration
to best suit the needs and enhance the learning experience of students, the
scaffolding, assessment criteria and approaches to informal learning need to be
revised. (McLaughlin & Lee, 2010) In my opinion, one of the larger
challenges presented by web and pedagogy 2.0 is establishing a teacher-mediated
balance of enabling self-direction while also functioning as a guide for
learners by providing effective scaffolding. Referencing Wood, Bruner and Ross,
McLaughlin and Lee shine light on the necessity of scaffolds and instruction
attuned to students’ learning techniques and perspectives by mentioning the
following: “The meaning of scaffolding is no longer confined to its original
association of expertise provided by a knowledgeable other, but has expanded to
include learner selected assistance, peer interactions, or could be embedded in
technology.” (Wood, Bruner and Ross, 1976)
Though faintly
presented, I find this to be a potentially massive obstacle for teachers
attempting to incorporate pedagogy 2.0 into their planning. If scaffolding is
not coming from a "knowledgeable other" in a classroom where student
learning is personalized and self directed, then an arsenal of scaffolding
technologies will be needed as available resources for students to choose
from...which in turn, may require the teacher to possess operational knowledge
of each resource.
As
the weeks unraveled and more radical thinking was presented through the
readings I began to wonder how I could experiment at implementing a few of
these ideas into my lesson planning and instruction but first I felt it
necessary to alleviate some of my doubt, apprehension and revulsion by finding
substantive, agreeable answers to a few of my inquiries.
First
I defensively wondered how ideal is it that students are to be so involved yet
liberated in their own spheres of personalized learning, designing and creating
content when they have either voluntarily enlisted or been conscripted to a
course in order to become experts and, please excuse the mundacity of this
expression, “learn how to learn”. Secondly, perhaps out of concern for my
profession, I became emotional and possibly these expressions can be
interpreted as displays of inadequacy in regard to my competence, but how are
students capable of making vitally important decisions on what and how they
choose to learn while they should be fully engrossed and occupied with
“learning how to learn”, especially since they have little experience nor
qualifications in the realm of curriculum and instruction?
Lastly,
I curiously wondered if this campaign for pedagogy reformed towards
personalized student centered learning and the impact of web 2.0 incorporation
lessened the qualitative value of education and the educational experience in
general? Sener (2007) believes that student generated content has been
pigeonholed to represent value only as templates for numerical success that
students should emulate if they want a high mark. In my experience, aside from
classroom displays of student created content that has met the criteria of
teacher mandated directives, student developed materials do not command respect
nor allocate autonomy to the creator. Nor is it stored in an accessible
database that can be referenced by current and future students as a primary
resource. I am guilty of this and I can see that this doesn't align with
student methods of gathering, exchanging and communicating important
information. I now realize and agree that using student developed content as a
primary resource and teaching tool within the classroom empowers students by
bolstering their confidence, furthering their interest and motivation and also
providing them opportunities to role- play as peer mentors and instructors.
Over the course of this module I have begun to realize that practice is
sometimes more valuable than research and content absorption. Meaning,
possessing a practical understanding and knowledge of how to maneuver,
manipulate, and mold these technologies to my desired outcomes is much more
valuable than having a grasp of the content by storing uncountable sums of
words and articles written by tweed wearing nosey say who academics in my mind.
:)
In
an attempt to find answers to the unanswered questions posed in this posting
and at the urgings of Dr. Goria and Angelos, I researched an article loosely
related to these questions and decided to make a video about my thoughts and
concerns in relation to autonomous student learning and the calculation of
teacher presence within a vle.
I do realize that a number of my objections and concerns in regards to web and
pedagogy 2.0 implementation, plainly view these suggestions at face value
without considering the unseen, deeply embedded processes that lie behind
curriculum, instruction, learner development and the student learning
environment. I also realize that within the tightly drawn boundaries of
classroom tasks, teachers will be aware of varying student learning styles,
levels of individual competence and learner confidence. Based on this knowledge
it is obvious that teachers will calculate their degree of necessary presence
and make the call on when to catch and release students to learn collectively
and autonomously.
As
mentioned by McLaughlin and Lee, I think the most valuable insights I’ve
received from the discussions held during the last two weeks is that now it is
blatantly clear to me that there is a significant gap between my idealized and
practiced pedagogy and the methods of learning that students expect to practice
and refine while in school. (McLaughlin and Lee, 2010) It is my hope that by
experimenting and developing my confidence and competence with a range of web
2.0 tools I can reform my instructional methods and calibrate my level of
presence to align with student perspectives, interests and their modes of learning.
No comments:
Post a Comment