The connectedness and interactivity of Web 2.0 challenges us to only change our behaviour online, but it always pushes schools and businesses to rethink they do to cater for clientele that are used to such fast-passed, click-of-the-button service. One particular sector that has been under great pressure to alter or face redundancy is libraries. School libraries especially are quickly realising they need to offer services to cater for the change in teaching and learning that has accompanied Web 2.0 as their users are preferring to visit Google and other Internet services over the library catalogue, under the belief that the library can no longer meet their needs. Enter the notion of Library 2.0.
The video below published by UC Berkeley discusses the notion of Library 2.0 and flags several concepts for libraries to follow when ensuring their services reflect twenty-first century, digital age services.
Keynote speaker Meredith Farkas discusses Library 2.0 as building on the concept of Web 2.0 where instead of users being only viewers of information, they became active participants in the creation of information (UC Berkeley Events, 2007). Whereas our traditional libraries acted primarily as storehouses of information, they must now evolve to reflect societal and technological changes and reevaluate how to meet the needs of users in the world of the digital age. Perhaps the biggest change libraries can make to move into the world of 2.0 is embrace the notion that our services can no longer remain static, we must constantly alter what we do to reflect the world around us, whether we have yet perfected the service or not.
The video below created by myself and colleague Helen Stower provides one example of how our libraries can enter to the world of 2.0 and evolve to meet the needs of users.
As suggested by Farkas in her UC Berkeley address, libraries need to reimagine what they can offer in their spaces and how they can enter Web 2.0 and respond to the needs of our digital age users. This involves considering exactly who the users of library are, in the case of the Mount Alvernia iCentre, this meant altering services to not only consider the needs of students of the college but all learners; teachers, parents and the wider community. After all, in the world of Library 2.0, access to the library becomes open to anyone with internet access, not just those who access the physical space. If users can access Google and other information services from the comfort of their own home, why wouldn’t they want to access the services of their school library from the same place. Hence, libraries that offer 2.0 services must allow for interaction with users via websites and social media sites. The Slideshare below highlights some key considerations for school libraries to consider when altering their services from a Library 1.0 model to that of a 2.0 model.
Most importantly, the biggest recommendation for libraries looking to enter the world of Library 2.0 is to dive and meet users where they are at, if we continue to sit back and wait for services in the digital age to become perfect and static, they will have changed before we have the chance to offer them in our spaces.
It has become clear in recent years, post the emergence of Web 2.0, that social networks, are here to stay. As evidenced in the images below, Web 2.0 altered the static nature of the websites we experienced in Web 1.0, allowing users to not only consume but produce content when interacting with a site.
When users became able to interact with the sites they were visiting online, it was easy to see how the popularity of social networking sites grew rapidly, as the ability of users to draw on the collective intelligence of other users and ‘friends’ replicated networking in the physical sense but evolved to ‘networking on steroids’, as users were suddenly able to connect with people at any time in any place with the click of a button (O’ Reilly, 2005). Christopher Barnatt (2008, March 30) elaborates on this in the video below and suggests that Web 2.0 involves making connections between two or more people, items or applications, essentially allowing interpersonal computing aspects to integrate their offerings and provide a richer service than that of Web 1.0 sites.
This emergence of Web 2.0 and social networking challenged us to re-think our behaviour on the internet and, instead of viewing it as simply a place to gather information, users were able to go beyond this and create and discuss information with others around the world (De Rosea, Cantrell, Havens, Hawk & Jenkins, 2007, p. vii). As Meyer suggests when quoting from A. A. Milne, the concept of social networking that evolved with Web 2.0 has allowed us to connect with others where they are comfortable, instead of waiting for them to come to us, creating attractive networking possibilities as we strive to create and maintain relationships both personally and professionally (as cited in Ishizuka, K, 2010, p.32).
The social networking craze that resulted from Web 2.0 is one that needs further exploration in the world of education. If individuals have become so attracted to broadening their networks beyond physical forms and connecting with others in the digital world, it won’t be long before this concept is one we must consider in our classrooms. We must consider how the emergence of Web 2.0 and social networking will push us from the world of static learning and information to the interactive.
Reference List
De Rosa, C., Cantrell, J., Havens, A., Hawk, J. & Jenkins, L. (2007). Sharing privacy and trust in our networked world: A report to the OCLC membership. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC [ebook]. Available from www.oclc.org/reports/pdfs/sharing.pdf
Ishizuka, K. (2010). People who need people. School Library Journal, 56(2), 32.
The relentless pace of change of the twenty-first century has framed learning as a cultural phenomenon as globalisation, technological advancements and the rise of the digital age have created a need for citizens to become lifelong learners who are constantly up-skilling in order to survive and thrive (Douglas & Seely Brown, 2011, loc 50; Jarvis, 2009, p.15). The digital age has removed many of the physical restrictions placed on learning, as technologies allow us to travel around the world and access a ubiquity of information at the click of a button (Selwyn, 2013, p.2).
The Future of Learning (Redecker et al., 2011, p. 9).
The image above provides a conceptual map of the future of learning and the influence of drivers and Information Communication Technology (ICT) trends on education means that, more than ever, teachers are expected to be adept at a variety of technology-based pedagogical practices in order to promote twenty-first century learning experiences for their students (Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada & Freedman, 2014, p.6). In response to the ever-changing notions of learning in the twenty-first century, Perkins suggests that educators must begin to provide learning experiences that are both ‘lifeworthy’- “likely to matter in the lives learners are likely to live” (2014, p. 8), and ‘lifeready’ – “ready to pop up on appropriate occasions and help make sense of the world” (2014, p. 24).Consequently, as educators in this society, to offer lifeworthy and lifeready learning to our students, our classrooms must become what Boccini, Kampylis and Punie describe as ‘live ecosystems’, environments that constantly evolve and change to suit the context and culture of which they are a part (2012). It becomes essential then that we meet the learning needs of students by creating, “a sustainable learning ecology that is shaped by the ubiquity of information, globally responsive pedagogical practices, and driven by collaboration and informal learning in multiple access points and through multiple mediums” (O’Connell, 2015). The greatest challenge for educators in the digital age becomes how to alter their pedagogy and curricula to provide lifeready and lifeworthy learning for students that will be likely to matter to them in their future (Perkins, 2014). Therefore networked concepts such as expert amateurism and connected learning are essential starting points for educators in ensuring the learning that happens in their classrooms is future-proof.
Lifeready and Lifeworthy Learning
In the video above, Alan November poses some important questions about the role of teaching and learning in the digital age. He emphasises that we must accept the idea of ‘digital natives’ as a myth and acknowledge the fact that, just because today’s learners were born into the digital age, they are not necessarily prepared for learning in the digital age. Thus, we must accept that our society of ubiquitous information access does not make redundant the role of the teacher, as information access does not equal knowledge attainment (Seely Brown & Duguid, 2000). Rather, it becomes the role of the teacher to ensure that all learning experienced in the classroom is genuine, viable and future-orientated. This is where Perkin’s notions of lifeready and lifeworthy learning become, essential for educators of the digital age in ensuring the currency and relevancy of what they are teaching. Traditionally, education in schools has been concerned with educating for a known future, where tried and true hierarchical structures were dictated by curriculum organised into disciplines. Perkins asserts that while a hierarchical structure offers advantages of simplicity and organisation, it does not aptly reflect the learners of the digital age, who are living in an increasingly networked and globalised world, calling educators to rethink the how, what and why of teaching to incorporate the expanding measure of what is worth learning (2014, p.41). Similarly, Douglas and Seely Brown suggest that we must consider the change in learning that happened with the move from the stable infrastructure of the twentieth century to the fluid infrastructure of the twenty-first century (2011, loc. 50).
Traditional Hierarchical Structure of Education (Perkins, 2014, p.41).
Networked Structure of Education in the Digital Age (Perkins, 2014, p.42).
Thus, a more networked approach to learning that incorporates lifeready and lifeworthy learning is essential as, “a network structure mirrors today’s multiplicity of engagements and serves today’s learners better: disciplines related to one another, teachers collaborating with one another, students interact richly with one another, drawing on diverse information sources, addressing twenty-first century skills, and engaging life and world problems and opportunities” (2014, p.47). It becomes evident then, that educators must begin to consider how the influence of networked environments reshapes the learning that is valued by students in their classrooms and the relevance the learning that takes places will have in the lives their students are likely to live.
Expert Amateurism
The video above articulates perfectly the decreasing value of knowledge attainment alone in a world where we can access all of the information we need online. What is more important is knowing how to ask the right questions and building the skills we need to assist us in knowing what to do when we do not know what to do. Therefore, considering a networked curriculum that caters for expert amateurism, becomes a way for educators to provide lifeready and lifeworthy learning that will enable them to succeed beyond their time at school. Perkins states that an, “expert amateur understands the basics and applies them confidently, correctly and flexibly” (2014, p.38). Furthermore, this notion of expert amateurism serves much of the learning we do outside the school environment in our everyday lives. While not devaluing the role of specialisation and traditional disciplines, expert amateurism has the potential to play an appropriate role at the foundation of our curricula in the digital age. It allows us to practice the skills of lifelong learning as we apply what we know to look outwards towards the networked world around us, instead of inwards towards our insular scholarly disciplines. Of course, our traditional focus on building expertise in each discipline by way of advanced technical content has value later in life as individuals choose to specialise in areas that interest them, however, in our school environments, this is unlikely to have much value to the majority of students in the lives they are likely to live (Perkins, 2014). Embracing expert amateurism allows us to ensure that the students in our classrooms are able to make connections outside of specific learning areas and connect their learning to build greater understanding, just as they do in their everyday life outside of the classroom.
Expert Amateurism works to provide lifeready and lifeworthy learning (Storm, 2013).
Redecker et al., state that two of the biggest challenges in providing lifeready and lifeworthy learning are: providing transition between the worlds of school and future employment, and focussing on permanent re-skilling to enable all citizens to adjust quickly to new environments (2011, p.10). As educators in the digital age then, we must work to build and model expert amateurism for our students to ensure that learning in the classroom is lifeready and lifeworthy. When we consider the role of expert amateurism in a networked approach to learning, we are providing learning that allows students to use what they know to make connections and reflect best-practice in the digital age, as students are able to go beyond the insular walls of their classroom. Expert amateurism provides students with the basics they need to thrive and survive in the twenty-first century as they navigate their way through an ever-changing and digital world.
Connected Learning
Connected learning provides an approach to teaching and learning that assists educators in building expert amateurism and move away from a hierarchical structure towards a networked structure of learning in their classroom.
The ever-present change of the twenty-first century means that educators have to seamlessly adapt their practices to suit new technologies, skills, learning environments and the needs of their students (Cantrill, et. al., 2014, p. 4). Outside of school, our students are learning, engaging and producing in productive and collaborative ways, using digital media and networked environments (Cantrill, et. al, 2014, p.6). Thus, while not born in the digital age, the principles of connected learning are befitting of it, as it promotes student-driven connection that requires active participation and collaboration in front of a real-world audience (O’Connell, 2015b). With the world at their fingertips, students of the digital age have diverse pathways in which they can access connected learning, enabling connections between their learning at school and their networks and interests outside of school, providing learning that is both lifeready and lifeworthy. Embracing a connected learning framework in our pedagogical approaches enables us to draw focus away from particular technologies that often take precedent in the digital age, and instead, focus on the value of learning through, “purposeful integration of tools for social connection, creations and linking the classroom, community and home” (Ito, et. al., 2013, p.33). As evidenced in the infographic below, connected learning encompasses production-centred, openly networked learning, that is driven by interests and shared purpose and allows for collaboration and academic growth.
Connected Learning (Connected Learning, 2013).
The Connected Learning Framework below demonstrates the ability of connected learning to allow students to look outwards from curricula and create and build connections naturally, based on their interests. With educators both guiding and modelling connected learning, there is much potential to provide learning that is lifeready and lifeworthy and conducive to the digital age.
Connected Learning Framework (Ito, et. al., 2013, p. 12).
The video below provides an authentic example of connected learning in practice. The combination of a student demonstrating the notion of expert amateurism combined with connected learning principles in this example attests to the power of learning that is both lifeready and lifeworthy.
The highly networked society of the digital age means that students are coming to school indoctrinated by our culture of lifelong learning, and if we are not careful, will be met with out-dated models of teaching and learning that do not promote engagement of lifeready and lifeworthy learning. By foregrounding the way we learn in the digital age, rather than focusing on knowledge attainment and expertise alone, and embracing concepts such as expert amateurism and connected learning in our teaching practice, we will provide our students with the skills and ability to continue learning in their life beyond school. We must begin to turn away from traditional hierarchical structures of education that could be seen to value what was already prescribed and valued knowledge and focus on building skills in learning that prepares students for learning in the world they are likely to live (Starkey, 2011, p. 19). Siemansarticulates learning in the digital age as, “a process that occurs within nebulous environments of shifting core elements – not entirely under the control of the individual. Learning… can reside outside of ourselves (within an organization or a database), is focused on connecting specialized information sets, and the connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowing” (2004, para. 23). As educators, if we begin to explore the notions of expert amateurism and connected learning in our classrooms, we will be well on the way to meeting the needs of digital age learning. If we continue to value the hierarchical practices of traditional education that value knowledge attainment alone, without evolving to more networked structures promoting transferable knowledge and skills, we will not ensure that we are preparing students for lifeready and lifeworthy learning necessary of the digital age. We must begin to embrace a culture of learning indicative of twenty-first century practices in the digital age so that we are preparing students for their future, and not the future we thought they would have.
Reference List
Bocconi, S., Kampylis, P. G., & Punie, Y. (2012). Innovating learning: Key elements for developing creative classrooms in Europe. Joint Research Centre–Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. European Commission. Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg. doi: 10, 90566.
Cantrill, C., Filipiak, D., Garcia, A., Hunt, B., Lee, C., Mirra., O’Donnell-Allen, C., & Peppler, K. (2014). Teaching in the connected learning classroom (ed. A. Garcia). Irvine, CA: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.
Institute of Play. (2013). Charles Raben, 9th grade student at quest to learn [Video file]. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/59098372
Ito, M., Guitierrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., Schor, J., Sefton-Green, J., & Craig Watkins, C. (2013). Connected learning: an agenda for research and design. Irvine, CA: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.
Jarvis, P. (2009). The Routledge international handbook of lifelong learning. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
Seely Brown, J. & Duguid, P. (2000). Social life of information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.<span “font-family:arial;mso-fareast-font-family:=”” “times=”” roman”;mso-ansi-language:en-au”=””>
Selwyn, N. (2013). Education in a digital world: Global perspectives on technology and education. New York: Routledge.
Starkey, L. (2011). Evaluating learning in the 21st century: A digital age learning matrix. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 20(1), 19-39. doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2011.554021
The Brainwaves Video Anthology. (2014, May 5). Alan November – who owns the learning? Preparing students for success in the digital age [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOAIxIBeT90
Perkins, D. (2014). Future wise: Educating our children for a changing world. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
It is an interesting time in the world of teaching and learning. The digital age has catapulted us into an era we were not quite ready for and many educators are holding on by the ‘skin of their teeth’, struggling to achieve pedagogical practices and curriculum worthy of twenty-first century learning (Burgess, 2012, loc. 103; Marzano, 2007, loc. 33; Price, 2013, p. 20). The relevance and currency of our traditional teaching and learning methods have been debated in numerous spheres and countless movements in education are recognising the need for transformation in the ways we teach and learn to cope with the ubiquitous connectivity and information overload of our students (Costa & Kallick, 2009; Crockett, Jukes & Churches, 2011; Gardner, 2006; Hattie & Yates, 2014). What constitutes our learning ecology has become incredibly difficult to articulate and, with information available at the click of a button, anywhere and everywhere, we are beginning to see our learning frameworks and pedagogies transform into those that boast twenty-first century skills, future-proof learning and technological integration (Seely Brown, 2010, p.12). It seems however, that while there is much literature to support the betterment of teaching and learning in the world of continuous transformation, we often overlook what is perhaps the most important consideration, that is, the question raised by David Perkins in Future Wise: Educating our Children for a Changing World (2014), what is actually worth knowing, learning and understanding for a student of the digital age? Consideration of this question, while incredibly broad in scope, provides an important starting point in our quest as educators to reimagine education in contemporary society. While we can transform the way we teach and reconsider how we learn in the twenty-first century, if we do not stop to determine the relevancy of what is worth learning, we could be missing the point of learning completely. It is this factor that makes Perkins’ discussion in Future Wise: Educating our Children for a Changing World pertinent for all educators of the digital age. This review will provide an overview of the key themes of Perkin’s dialogue around what is worth learning and analyse and compare this discussion to relevant scholarly literature in the field. Limited in that Future Wise: Educating our Children for a Changing World does not answer its overarching question of ‘what is worth learning’, what it does provide is an essential toolkit of ideas for all educators to contemplate as we work to revolutionise perhaps one of the most fundamental yet often marginalised considerations of education in the twenty-first century; is what students are learning in school likely to matter in the lives they are likely to live?
Future Wise: Educating our Children for a Changing World is founded in the research and work of David Perkins, Research Professor of Teaching and Learning at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. A founding member of Harvard’s Project Zero, a research and development institute at Harvard, Perkins boasts an extensive body of work focused on teaching and learning over his lifetime, including collaborations with notable contemporaries such as Howard Gardner and Veronica Boix Mansilla. Traditionally, David Perkins adopts a social constructivist epistemology in his work, and this also underpins many of the themes in Future Wise: Educating our Children for a Changing World. Qualitative in nature, the content of Perkins’ book is based around experiential narratives and analysis from his years as a teacher, lecturer and researcher, and compiles a body of ideas and discussion to support well-grounded prior research by Perkins and other experts in the field. While intended to inspire educators to take the first step towards reimaging the curriculum offered in our complex and ever-changing world, the style of this book makes it accessible not only to educators, but also other parties such as parents, students and policy-makers invested in thinking about the currency of what is learnt in schooling systems. As admitted by Perkins in his introduction, the scope of ‘what’s worth learning’ is incredibly broad and almost impossible to answer, thus, instead of attempting to answer the question, Perkins offers what he articulates are better ways of thinking about what’s worth learning for most people in school (2014, p.4). This is one of the strengths of the book, as readers are given the opportunity to embrace and reflect on the wisdom offered through the ‘try this’ activities scattered throughout and the comprehensive ‘reimagining education’ analysis located at the end of each chapter. Through his ‘reimaging education’ sections, Perkins assists learners to keep track of the ideas developed in each chapter as he provides analysis under four main quests: “identifying learning in contrast with not-so-lifeworthy learning”; “choosing what lifeworthy learning to teach from the many possibilities”; “teaching for lifeworthy learning in ways that make the most of it”; and “constructing a lifeworthy curriculum” (2014, p.25). Cleverly, these sections allow the readers to transfer their newfound knowledge into understandings through examination of practical and relevant examples, a concept discussed by Perkins as essential for learning that is future-proof.
Debate over what constitutes learning has been historically concerned with how knowledge is constructed and transferred to understandings in the mind of the learner (Dewey, 1910, p.44; Forman & Kuschner, 1977, p.84; von Glaserfeld, 1989, p.128). In Future Wise: Educating our Children for a Changing World, Perkins emphasises the importance of knowledge construction and transference through his assertion that the learning we offer students must not only be ‘lifeworthy’- “likely to matter in the lives learners are likely to live” (2014, p. 8), but also ‘lifeready’ – “ready to pop up on appropriate occasions and help make sense of the world” (2014, p. 24). This assertion echoes the work of academics such as Seely Brown, who suggests that knowledge is made up of a combination of explicit and tactic dimensions which, when applied together, constitute learning (2000, p. 15), and Bruner, who suggests that learning involves interconnection between both explicit and practical knowledge, leading to enculturation (1960, p.14). With this in mind, Perkins raises an issue worthy of consideration for educators when he asserts that the learning that has traditionally occurred in our school systems risks redundancy, as the knowledge students are attaining becomes increasingly irrelevant, and consequently, inapplicable to the lives they are likely to lead in the digital age (2014, p.7). Interestingly this notion furthers the work of early educational theorist John Dewey, who warned that, “only in education, never in the life of farmer, sailor, merchant, physician, or laboratory experimenter, does knowledge mean primarily a store of information aloof from doing” (1916, p.185). Nearly a century later, this notion forms the foundation of Future Wise: Educating our Children for a Changing World, as Perkins acknowledges the growing trend in teachers wanting to push the boundaries of what is taught in their classroom to make learning more relevant to the lives their students are likely to lead (2014, p.2). In response to this Perkins identifies ‘six beyonds’ that he proposes collectively represent the growing concerns among educators when considering how to prepare learners for our contemporary world. The beyonds cover going beyond: basic skills – twenty-first century skills and dispositions; the traditional disciplines – renewed, hybrid, and less familiar disciplines; discrete disciplines – interdisciplinary topics and problems; regional perspectives – global perspectives, problems, and studies; mastering content – learning to think about the world with the content; and prescribed content – much more choice of what to learn (2014, p.2). It is contemplation and adoption of these beyonds that Perkins alleges will force educators and their systems to revise the knowledge necessary for lifeworthy and lifeready learning and successfully prepare learners for their unknown future (2014, p.8).
In the shift from the industrial age, through the knowledge age and into the constantly evolving digital age, the world that students are exposed to has become considerably larger. Where learning has conventionally involved knowledge attainment, Perkins asserts that this no longer aligns with the connected and networked environment of today’s world (2014, p.40). The traditional educational goals of knowledge and content attainment have become ineffective in preparing students for life outside of school as our globalised, networked world has quickly devalued much remembered information (2014, p.43). This has created what Perkins deems the ‘small world paradox’, that is, as our ability to connect and interact with worlds beyond the classroom becomes a norm in learning, our collective worlds become smaller, making the worlds we engage with individually more numerous and complex (2014, p.46). This is reiterated by scholars such as Trilling and Fadel who fear that, “the potential for information overload, distraction, and analysis paralysis when facing demands for attention from too many sources – ranging from well-informed and reliable to woefully uninformed and even deliberately misleading – is high” (2009, p.17). Hence, Perkins’ recommendation that instead of foregrounding specialised disciplinary knowledge, education should value building expert amateurism in its learners, that is, learners who are able to understand and apply basics from individual disciplines across and outwards to other areas (2014, p.38). This is not to diminish the more quantified knowledge needed for further study in specialised areas, however, Perkins suggests that, particularly at a middle school level, “the expertise agenda in basic education skews learning toward advanced technical content not helpful to most learners in the lives they are likely to live” (2014, p.47). Perkins is not lessening the importance of discipline specific knowledge, however in building on the ideas of educational evangelists such as Sir Ken Robinson, he is challenging educators to reevaluate whether this knowledge is relevant to the lives all learners in school are likely to live (Robinson, 2001). Perkins suggests that through ‘smart sampling’ of curriculum we needed to provide learning and knowledge that promotes big questions and big understandings, allowing students to use their expert amateur knowledge to connect with the ever-changing world around them as needed. His following discussion on the relevance of hybrid curriculum, cross topics and analysis of twenty-first century frameworks (or ‘big know-how’), makes Perkins’ book particularly pertinent, as it becomes apparent that focusing on what is worth learning needs to come before faddish innovations in technology, pedagogy and processes of learning (2014, p.220).
While providing a toolkit of important considerations for learning in the twenty-first century, refreshingly, Future wise: Educating our Children for a Changing World does not make the assertion that there is one right answer in transforming the education offered to students. Rather, Perkins’ motivations in this book are best articulated through his request that we as educators think about what application the learning in our first twelve years of education has had on our lives today. More often than not, Perkins avows, it was the knowledge and skills we acquired that allowed us to create big understandings across topics and disciplines and provided relevance along the way to greater wisdom in the lives we have and will continue to lead. David Perkins has authored a book grounded in relevant research that collates, analyses and discusses current educational debates about what is worth learning in the digital age, delivering better ways for us to think about how to answer this question. While readers may find Perkins’ content and ideas unsettling, this is what makes his work so efficacious; if we as educators are not thinking about the relevance of content, knowledge and curricula offered in our teaching and learning, we are not providing the best possible learning for our students.
Reference List
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2009). Habits of mind across the curriculum: Practical and creative strategies for teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Crockett, L., Jukes, I., & Churches, A. (2011). Literacy is not enough: 21st century fluencies for the digital age. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: DC Heath.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: MacMillan.
Forman, G., & Kuschner, D. (1977). The child’s construction of knowledge. Belmont, Calif: Wadworth Co.
Gardner, H. (2006). Five minds for the future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Hattie, J., & Yates, G. C. (2014). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. Routledge.
Perkins, D. (2014). Future wise: Educating our children for a changing world. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Price, D. (2013). OPEN: How we’ll work, live and learn in the future. Crux Publishing Ltd.
Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Oxford: Capstone.
Seeley Brown, J. (2000). Growing up: Digital: How the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 32(2), 11-20. doi: 10.1080/00091380009601719
Trilling, B. & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons.
von Glaserfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80 (1), 121-140. doi: 10.1007/BF00869951.
We are in for an exciting term in Retech (Research and Technology) this term. After a really successful trial with one class last year, this year we have the whole year 8 cohort participating in iSolve – #geniushourmta. I have discussed the concepts behind Genius Hour in a previous post and have found the majority of students can’t wait to work on their genius projects when you provide them with an effective hook to start them thinking about their passion and how they might use this passion to inspire others. There are two particular ideas we use to generate interest for #geniushourmta. The first inspires students to think about the people who have gone before us and left a footprint on the world, eg. past inventions and people who have created something to inspire others. The video below created by ‘Google’ is a fantastic way to do this:
We then like to follow up with a real life example of a young boy who used his passion to inspire others and (inadvertently) create a worldwide movement.
The example of Caine’s arcade works well to motivate students and inspire discussion around what they are passionate about and how they could use this to make a difference. However, what really ‘hooks’ the students is part 2 of Caine’s story and the completely unintentional impact his story has had on creativity and learning in schools
This video also provides an excellent of the power of collaboration and social media.
I can’t wait to follow the progress of our Year 8 students in #geniushourmta and look forward to sharing this with you as they begin to explore their passions.
I’ll leave you with an initial reflection from one of our student’s after being ‘hooked’ onto #geniushourmta
People often ask why I believe Inquiry learning is such an important approach and to be honest, this can be a really difficult question to answer persuasively in fifty words or less. In fact, numerous educators have admitted to me that they knew about inquiry, could define inquiry but didn’t really have that lightbulb moment of understanding on the effectiveness or positives for adopting inquiry learning, until they used it in their classroom. This is completely understandable as approaches to inquiry are so vast and broad-ranging that it can be difficult to articulate the foundation behind this concept in one fell swoop.
Recently, I was fortunate enough to listen to Veronica Boix Mansilla‘s keynote address on Global Competency at the Adolescent Success Asia Pacific Conference of Middle Schooling in Singapore. Whether or not this was the intention of Mansilla’s keynote, this presentation provided for me one of the most persuasive arguments for inquiry learning and reminded me of exactly why inquiry is so integral in creating learners who are active participants in the twenty-first century.
Essentially learning is about perspectives. Students enter the classroom with a range of different understandings, knowledge and skills, i.e, a range of different perspectives. Learning happens when our students investigate, challenge and add to these perspectives to create a shift in the perspective they had when they first walked into the classroom. We want our students to take, use and understand perspectives in their learning as they build their own understandings, rethink what they ‘know’ and add to this. We want our students to be future-proof learners and this involves ensuring that they are globally competent. Mansilla describes the concept of global competency in the video below:
It is easy to see how this notion of global competency relates to inquiry learning. The essence of inquiry learning isn’t about simply answering questions, it’s about asking questions and taking action. True inquiry doesn’t discriminate against discipline or subject area, instead it pushes students to challenge identities and perspectives through encouraging them to identify problems and issues that require investigation and act on these. It is the understanding created and shifts in perspective that result from these investigations that ensures students are truly learning.
As a convert to the work of Project Zero, I look forward to examining Mansilla’s work further and strongly suggest the work of both Mansilla and fellow Project Zero researchers such as David Perkins as a great starting place for those interested in inquiry learning.
Schools around the world are increasingly adopting technology into their classroom environments and boasting one-to-one or mobile device programs. While these initiatives are essential in twenty-first century learning environments, what we are yet to hear about is exactly how effective ICTs are in enhancing the learning in a classroom. Learning using ICTs incorporates more than putting these devices in a classroom or the hands of our students, it must involve an integration between pedagogy and technology by supporting the incorporation of meaningful educational content and contextualized pedagogy (Buckner & Kim, 2014, p.100). This may include for example, considering what effect placing a mobile device in the hands of every student in a classroom will have on their ability to collaborate and problem-solve. There is argument here that, without appropriate pedagogy, this would actually decrease the way dimensions mentioned in the Australian Curriculum General Capabilities, particularly the ICT Capability, are met by students in their learning.
While effectively, mobile devices broaden the learning environments and opportunities students are exposed to, as educators, we are focusing too much on the type of technology we provide, instead of the pedagogical techniques designed to utilise this technology appropriately.
Student and Teacher Training in ICTs
It may seem obvious that educators must have a strong knowledge of the technology and devices they are using with their students. However, Buckner & Kim suggest that often, this is the biggest factor in decreasing the ability of students to learn using ICTs. Educators who feel uncomfortable with the use of ICTs or are scared of losing authority and control when students use ICTs in the classroom, greatly decrease the opportunities of students to question, problem-solve and learn (2014, p.102). This factors supports the notion that schools must begin to provide greater support for staff in their use of ICTs and place greater focus on the skills they need to use their in their teaching and learning – not the programs.
ICTs and Mobile Devices role in enhancing Inquiry Learning
As educators, we are well aware of the potential of ICTs and mobile devices to increase engagement in the learning of our students, however, we must pay attention to the effect our pedagogical practices has on this. Simply providing a student with a Mobile Device to type their work instead of write does not automatically increase engagement in learning. Instead, we must consider how we can change our teaching and learning in relation to ICTs and Mobile Devices to promote, “a pedagogical shift from didactic teacher-centred to participatory student-centred learning” (Looi, Seow, Zhang, So, Chen, & Wong, 2010, p. 156). In their article, Buckner and Kim examine the use of the SMILE model to promote the questioning involved in an inquiry-based learning environment through several different case studies across many countries. The video below provides an accompanying overview of the SMILE method used in the research of Buckner & Kim.
Whether or not the SMILE method is adopted in your school, Buckner & Kim lead us to acknowledge the importance as educators, particularly those who adopt inquiry-based learning practices, to consider exactly how we are using and integrating pedagogy AND ICTs to improve teaching and learning in our classrooms.
Reference List
Buckner, E., & Kim, P. (2014). Integrating technology and pedagogy for inquiry-based learning: The stanford mobile inquiry-based learning environment (SMILE). PROSPECTS, 44(1), 99-118. doi:10.1007/s11125-013-9269-7
Looi, C. K., Seow, P., Zhang, B. H., So, H. J., Chen, W., & Wong, L. H. (2010). Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: A research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 154–169.
I have been wanting to start blogging about my professional practice and ideas for a while now, however, was unsure of my exact purpose and direction. As a future-forward educator I absolutely love the ability we have in the twenty-first century to remove the walls of the classroom and consider learning as something we can do in any location, at any time. What I have been struggling with for a while is the question of why there are so many educators who don’t get excited about this notion? I attended the Middle Years of Schooling (MYSA) conference last week and one of the speakers touched on the topic of vulnerability and how it can affect many educators. This really hit home for me. Why, as teachers, are we so excited about collaboration, yet too scared to actually open up our classroom to others? There are so many reasons why teachers could feel threatened about removing the walls of their classroom, including feeling judged, scared, threatened and so on. However, if we are going to be educators of the twenty-first century, we need to be transparent in our practice as well as being collaborative. It’s no longer realistic to expect that teaching will open happen inside the four walls of our classroom. If we are providing our students with learning experiences and skills that will prepare them for an unknown future, we need to embrace the notion that learning happens beyond our physical environment. This helps me to articulate to the purpose of my blog, I can preach about transcending the walls of the classroom all I want, but nothing will change unless I provide ideas and examples on how this can happen. Hopefully, this will assist us in changing the mindset that what happens in the classroom is private.
Most days I wake up and want to change the world of education in one foul swoop, but today I know it has to be with one small step at a time. Watch this space to see how exactly how educators can begin to remove the walls of their classroom.. one brick at a time. Welcome to the future of learning.
The Private Teacher 