Australia Word Document

Australia (html)

Obviously every new technology is seen as the saviour of the world, to be the answer to every teacher°s prayer. As I have said before I believe it is the nature of the teacher and his or her style or ability to learn and change that determines how good or bad the teaching will be

What are we waiting for?

I think we are waiting for a better "fit". Many classes are still groups who are expected to be learning the same things at the same time. In that situation, obviously we all need computers for every student at the same time (all using the same software) If there were more student centred models operating maybe this would be less important as some students would be using the computer, others using paper, others grouped around the white board, others outside rehearsing, still others on an excursionÞdreams ..maybe.

I might be getting cynical in my old age but it seems more things change the more they stay the same. The Unit Curriculum (way back when) promised flexibility so brighter kids could do more advanced units from Upper year units and the slower ones could spread them out and take things slower. It was supposed to mean a year 8 student might be in Year 10 classes or vice versa. Did this happen? No, the great gods "timetables" and "system" meant students just ended up doing the same courses (or not able to) so labelled, pigeonholed, restricted, trapped. Brighter students mark time, slower students still struggle. Very few students were given the opportunity of doing courses out of their year level. I was just too hard.

Similarly the Curriculum Framework has the potential to allow students to learn appropriately and relevantly, but I wonder how many teachers will really change their teaching style?

Unless expectations of schools change how can, we expect teachers to change? All the rhetoric in the world won°t change the desire that parents have for children to have the education that gets them a good job and that principals and universities have that students get good TEE scores. And everyone°s wish that students can spell and add up. These desires might conflict with employers° desire for employees with initiative and confidence. However, traditional expectations are still very strong.. and easier to assess that creativity or common sense.

Some more bad examples

Obviously, students can°t absorb understand or integrate more information just because there°s more of it available. In some ways that enormous amount means a greater problem One of the hassles of the web is the huge pile of stuff, both good and bad that is available. Students can°t "absorb more information" however much time they have to do it in! We might if teachers are good and conditions optimal be able to assist students to understand and interact with their world better, more than that is impossible.

Tools not takeovers

I reiterate my opinion on this. Teachers and students can use IT effectively to add to and improve the learning experience but it is no sense to think IT will provide any easy answer to the education process on it°s own

Schools of the (near) Future

Does "universal access to ubiquitous embedded technology" provide a fundamentally better, more enriched teaching and learning environment, than the traditional "computing lab"?

This could be a better learning environment as computing labs mean that a teacher has to timetable access and this may not always (or often) be possible. It also takes using IT out of the usual and makes it "special", which can be a disadvantage. For the use of computers to be used really effectively they should not be regarded any more special than the use of a book or pen. Unfortunately "embedded technology" does not necessarily make the education enterprise more fundamentally effective. The possibility and the opportunity is there, the surety is not.

Does this (the total functioning of the school and emanates from a focus on student learning.) require a complete "from the ground up" revamp of how we teach, and how we interact with students?

Yes, I think it does. And I°m not sure how the "from the ground up" stuff is accomplished, somehow from within.

I°m not in the least surprised some teachers "jumped ship". Some would feel inadequate, unable to learn what was required quickly enough, that things were going too fast; some would feel pushed into changing when they were doing what they thought was a good job already; some would feel it was all going too slowly. Some would feel their notions of "sage on the stage" were the only way to teach and that "guide on the side" was relinquishing their responsibilities as teachers. Some teachers don°t like it hinted they don°t know it all. They feel threatened when students know something they don°t (this happens all the time with IT!) and instead of feeling exhilarated feel threatened.

"universal access and connectivity, and circular embedding"

These are obviously not possible for most schools. For government schools they are clearly totally impossible and except for the wealthiest of private schools out of the question. Equity? Access? Are clearly not possible. All that can be done in this area is establishing equality and access within a school and within a system, more than that is impossible. 9or extremely unlikely)

That while clearly unfair is no different to other educational opportunities. Under our present system university education is easily available only to the rich, if their parents are content to support them. The very poor may get Austudy, but that°s only those whose parents earn less than $25,000. The allowance is barely enough to live on and so most have to work, cutting in to their university experience. For children of the middle income earner opportunities are few. Some parents may try to support students through uni, but most will have to work to support themselves. Equality? Access? Not likely!

I am not surprised some schools are emulating Brewster°s example. The rhetoric sounds good educationally (if it works) and the conspicuous use of hardware goes down well with parents and community members. Many schools (especially private ones) compete with each other, and anything that sounds like it°s up with or ahead of the rest has a good chance of finding supporters. Some administrators too might see that it would possibly have a chance of revolutionising teaching styles in a sneaky way (that is if we all teach in a traditional manner maybe we°ll change if there°s a carrot of a laptop?)

The "most wired" colleges?

What does it prove? How many machines? How many access points? What does it say about the education? How involved are the students in their learning? How do courses provide what the students want to/need to learn? How much will they use/ remember/ relate to in a year°s time in five? In 10?

Reinventing Schools: The Technology is Now

What great ideas for the change in schools! So similar to the "open school" ideas in the "60s. The possibilities are challenging and exciting. The reality may be something less. The acknowledgment of the essential need for investment in teacher education and support is long overdue. The equity issue is a very real one. The widening gap between the have and the have nots is immeasurably worse when it°s access to information under discussion, as then the knowledge of how to better the situation is also withheld. The take up of technologies in the home and the expectations of schools are certainly an issue. Many schools may not be able to afford the expense, and some will take the easy way of buying hardware with little or no software, technical or training component. Some schools will be able to afford huge amounts of money, others very little. There is also a school expectation that students all have the technology at home which may not be true at all. The kind of integration of technology in education that is discussed would be fantastic but it argues huge organisational and systemic changes that I do not see happening or likely to happen. I wish they would but I doubt it. The issue of control is very high on administrators world view. Interactive learning skills have long been seen to be superior but few teachers and fewer schools advocate or use them. The education government system of WA has introduced lots of reforms over the years, so many that most teachers are tired and see the "change"

Are we looking at a revolution, the future... or just more hype?

Like everything else, some or both. It seems all of these grand designs and plans will cause some change. In the best of schools with the best administration with the best teachers, there will be a revolution. With the worst of all these, it will be worse than hype. Money will be taken away from areas where it might have been used more usefully. For most schools, the truth will lie somewhere in the middle. Ground will be gained in teaching some skills, some students and some teachers will achieve the potential. Some will flounder and be left behind. Many will play the game as usual.

Creating Motivating Interactive Learning Environments: a Constructivist View

Barry Harper

In today's society greater demands are being placed on education systems at all levels to produce citizens who can use knowledge in new domains and different situations. Members of society at every level are being asked to demonstrate advanced levels of problem-solving skills to retain their level of employment. Learning to think critically, to analyse and synthesis information to solve problems in a variety of contexts and to work effectively in teams are crucial skills for modern employees, and yet there is little evidence that our education systems are developing these skills in our children

I think very few teachers would argue with the point of view in the opening paragraph. There are calls especially from employers for a different level and kind of skill but education systems if anything are getting worse at this. "The recent political storm in Australia over basic literacy skills" seems to have more sway (It°s easy to control evidenced by the rash of standardised tests etc It seems to me that it°s a matter of contructivisiing teachers before we talk about using constructivist teaching in the schools.

The nexus between learner and designer which I discussed is very useful. It has long been established that teaching is a very good tool for learning and peer tutoring has a long history, of benefit to learner and tutor. In the same way the designer learns as he designs especially if he has to make the learner think

Via Presentation and Productivity to Thinker°s Toolkit:

Developing Saturation Computer Usage Across the Curriculum

This programme of using laptops seems to have been well thought out and cogent. (My question is about the expectation that parents can afford to buy one for their child. Maybe selective Anglican school parents are all super rich and can afford it without question? I wonder..and where does that leave poorer schools and poorer parents?)

Top Down Policy Decision - Bottom Up Implementation!

What a good idea. If the follow through was there and as reported it seemed to be.

`Just in Time° not `Just in Case°

This is great!! I am of the opinion if you teach the skills before they°re needed they°re forgotten anyway. They have to be taught at a point where the learner sees the need, and wants to learn.

I like the idea of thinking tools. I reckon philosophy, straight thinking should be required by every child (and adult!)

I like the emphasis on appropriate use of the technology. That is use when it would be the best tool. The value of that decision is very relevant. I°ve seen people use a word processor to do a job a pencil and paper would have done as well or better (on the other hand in skilled hands the job is just as quick with a word processor. When you°re learning it takes a long time, like a handyman job you learn how to do by the time you°re finished)

The support for teacher usage of laptops and curriculum development sounds very good; as does technical support and pd. (I would love to have heard from an ordinary teacher and his or her perceptions about the program)

It is good that mention is made of those who resist. We all know of the students whose work is "on the computer at home". No technology will overcome the reluctance of all the unwilling students or teachers.

IT is a tool, not a curriculum

resounds loudly and clearly from nearly everyone's lips.

Hear, hear. While it would be nice for all the kids to have laptops, and clearly a well-thought out educational program can use these effectively, the reality this is not for every school. Not every school that uses saturation laptops will/does use them effectively. Many schools with a lot less access to technology can use what they have to enormously enhance students° education. Some will not.

Implementing Constructivist Learning Theory in the High Tech Classroom

Veronica Hendriks

Teaching is, above all, value-oriented. As such, it is influenced by a teacher°s beliefs and assumptions about the nature of knowledge, the learner and the learning process.

It is refreshing to read this. When I qualified, in the dark ages, we were told we had to be objective, that no-one should guess what our values were. This, of course was impossible. Instead teachers pretended to be "value-free" and in the process indoctrinated their students because they were not up-front and honest.

From a constructivist perspective, learning is regarded as a social activity in which learners are engaged in constructing meaning through discussions and negotiations among peers, students and teachers.

This is such a good idea. I would love to see this as a paradigm in classrooms.

That is, technology is used to engage learners in cognitive thinking and learning through the use of these tools such that there is a qualitative upgrading of learners° performance in the joint system of learners plus technology

In the best of all possible worlds this might be the case. With great student centred teachers, technology that works and is available, technical expertise for hardware, software and professional development "on tap"Þ

that teacher°s epistemology is a key mediating influence on students° use of the computer as a tool for scientific inquiry

This is the key. Teacher°s willingness, training, time and mind set is crucial. That is why they need such support.

When selecting software for educational value, Madian (1995) cautions us against merely comparing them against written text for software with attractive and illustrative designs can sometimes blind us to the superficiality of the software. ..

we should also ask ourselves what students are actually doing and learning beyond some computer skills and what else they might be doing in the real world we were to invest our technology dollars in other ways.

 

All reviewing of educational materials should go beyond the illustrations and presentation. "Bells and whistles" have often tended to hide the educational content, whether we°re dealing with the latest non-fiction book or an interactive CD ROM. There is a tendency of students (and some teachers and education officials) to be blinded by the technology. If the multimedia technology offers nothing more than the print version, why spend 10 times the money? If it takes a practiced user 5 times as long to find a word in an online dictionary, why not stick to print?

Constructivism means that education should be more interactive but consideration has to be given that human interaction may be more important for socialising and educating people that technology interactions

This is an important point. Students can become addicted to computers, to the exclusion of everything else, including peer relations. We need to use the technology to enhance the students interactivity with the world, not divorce them from it. The same rules apply to text, of course. However we might encourage the book worms, we still encourage them to take part in group activities.

A high-tech classroom is meant as an embedding of technology into the whole curricular of the school and which therefore makes students and teachers partners with technology in cognition.

When technology becomes as much a part of schools as books we might be there. It°s not so long ago when schools had so few books they were rationed. One wall in a classroom was all that was in my high school. I thought I°d died and gone to heaven when I went to a senior high and found a whole library!!

Maybe, we°ll see something of that with regards to technology in another 30 years, and be facing our next challenge.