Learning in the Age of Digital Culture - Danny Arati #eden16
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•978 views
Presentation shared by author at the 2016 EDEN Annual Conference "Re-Imagining Learning Environments" held on 14-17 June 2016, in Budapest, Hungary. Find out more on #eden16 here: http://www.eden-online.org/2016_budapest/
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (20)
Ähnlich wie Learning in the Age of Digital Culture - Danny Arati #eden16
Ähnlich wie Learning in the Age of Digital Culture - Danny Arati #eden16 (20)
Mehr von EDEN Digital Learning Europe
Mehr von EDEN Digital Learning Europe (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Learning in the Age of Digital Culture - Danny Arati #eden16
- 1. Learning in the Age of Digital Culture Danny Arati Budapest, June 2016
- 2. LOL
- 4. THE SAMR MODEL AUGMENTATIONSUBSTITUTION MODIFICATION REDEFINITION ENHANCES TRANSFORMS
- 5. THE SAMR MODEL VISUALISED
- 7. WHAT ABOUT THE LEARNER? LEARNER
- 8. GAGNE’S 5 DOMAINS OF LEARNING SAMR INTELLECTUAL SKILLS INFORMATION COGNITIVE STRATEGIES MOTOR SKILLSATTITUDES
- 9. Problem solving Principle Concept Multiple Discrimination Verbal Association Psychomotor Response Stimulus-Response Signal COGNITIVE BEHAVIOURAL SAMR
- 10. GAGNE’S 9 INSTRUCTIONAL EVENTS RECEPTION EXPECTANCY RETRIEVAL SELECTIVE PERCEPTION SEMANTINC ENCODING RESPONDING REINFORCEMENT RETRIEVAL GENERALISATION SAMR
- 12. GAGNE’S 9 INSTRUCTIONAL EVENTS Stage Definition 1 RECEPTION Gaining attention 2 EXPECTANCY Informing learners of the objective 3 RETRIEVAL Stimulating recall of prior learning 4 SELECTIVE PERCEPTION Presenting the stimulus 5 SEMANTINC ENCODING Providing learning guidance 6 RESPONDING Eliciting performance 7 REINFORCEMENT Providing feedback 8 RETRIEVAL Assessing performance 9 GENERALISATION Enhancing retention and transfer
- 13. INSTRUCTIONAL EVENTS VS PURCHASING PROCESS Stage Definition 1 RECEPTION NEED FOR RECOGNITION? 2 EXPECTANCY 3 RETRIEVAL 4 SELECTIVE PERCEPTION SEARCH FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION? 5 SEMANTINC ENCODING PRODUCT EVALUATION? 6 RESPONDING PRODUCT CHOICE AND PURCHASE? 7 REINFORCEMENT POST-PURCHASE EVALUATION? 8 RETRIEVAL 9 GENERALISATION
- 14. PROVIDING FEEDBACK IS IMPORTANT
- 15. BACK TO THE LEARNER LEARNER
- 16. PROF KOMAROV’S PAC MODEL
- 17. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING
Hinweis der Redaktion
- I have a passion for languages, culture and communication. I have some background in teaching languages, I still write some contributions on Italian niche media – my education and passion really lies within these areas of humanities. And so I am naturally curious to see how modern technology has impact on our communication style and content. Some of the changes seem to happen in a natural way, they are not perceived as changes, perhaps as a natural progression, and not just by the younger generations. The acronym ‘LOL’ refers to ‘laughing out loud’, and has been used in all chat programmes together with a number of other acronyms to express various status of emotions. From a linguistic point of view, what I find interesting is to hear the acronym ‘LOL’ actually being used in oral communications as a word: ‘Did you see that dress? Lol!’ I also find it fascinating how icons are playing an increasing role in our communications. If you look at the programmes that allow instant chat, like Skype or WhatsApp, there is an ever increasing amount smileys and emoticos etc. to allow us to express all our moods and feelings, as if we were lost for words to exactly express how we feel, what we want to do, etc. Personally, I think that this generally contributes to enrich our communication skills, language being something very subtle and malleable that wants to be changed, decomposed and the re-composed again to express something in wonderful rythms and sounds. Sometimes I hear how txt messaging is having a negative impact on our language skills, and I tend to disagree because SMS requires to be concise and creative at the same time; but there are also other applications that perhaps devalue the whole process of human communication. Whatever my personal opinion, I think it is obvious that technology has an impact on how we communicate. I don’t know whether the impact is at cognitive level – but then you are the psychologists, perhaps you could tells us! So if technology does impact the way we communicate in all aspects of life, this must also be true for educational settings. But what are the actual impacts, and how can we analyse the potential impact in order to harness the best possible result?
- When talking about technology in the classroom, I like to assume a standard education scenario, with the following actors taking part, more or less actively: the teacher, the learners and the technology itself. You may recognise this triangle, as it has essentially the same shape as the classical didactical triangle made up of teacher/learner/content. For the purpose of my analysis, I have just substituted ‘content’ with ‘technology’. I am fully aware that there are many other actors who contribute to the above scenario. In fact, the classical didactical triangle also relates to assessment, evaluation, tools, instruction, etc. For technology deployment, we would also have to look at other external factors such as infrastructure, actual school buildings, financing models, etc. However, to include all this would go well beyond the scope of this presentation, but it is obvious to me that a more in-depth analysis is required. For the purpose of this talk, I would like to focus mainly on the interaction between technology and the learners.
- The SAMR model was proposed by Dr Ruben Puentedura in the USA in the early years of this century, to assess how ICT may impact learning and teaching. After studying at Harvard, Puentedura eventually became a teacher at Bennington College in Vermont, where he lead the ICT Department. It is rather straightforward, but still detailed and in-depth – I have heavily summarised it here for brevity reasons. The framework purports to analyse whether a specific technology has the potential to substitute, augment, modify or even re-define learning and teaching practices, tasks, experiences. If we keep in mind the amount of funds necessary for a wide deployment of technology, this kind of model is extremely important to help assess the return of the investment made. As I will show in my workshop later today, not all technology needs to go to the deeper shape, in order to add proper value. Also, some technology may be of a lighter shade of blue in some situations, and then in a darker shade of blue in another situation.
- In a way, the SAMR model relates to the usage model we want to have. A model where our pedagogical or methodological approach leads the technology, not where the technology dictates what we can or cannot do, according to its own limitations. The picture on the right shows a collaborative approach in the classroom, with a focus on research, sharing, comparing, etc. The whole classroom has been redefined, and the teacher is barely visible. On the other hand, the picture on the left shows some constraints of the technology that impacts the classroom activity. Learners have to work independently, all facing the same way, potentially all following the same task at the same time.
- It is not just a question of what technology ALLOWS us to do, but also what we want to do with it. This is a good example of how the periodic table can be reviewed, using QR codes and videos. However, the interesting part is not that learners can zap the QR code and watch the video about the specific element. Otherwise, this would just be a ‘S’ or at most an ‘A’ on the SAMR framework. Learners are asked to work in groups, and each group will receive the task to create a video about a number of elements. All videos are then uploaded and shared with the whole class. The task is successful if fellow learners understand the explanations given in the videos. This approach is a ‘R’ in the SAMR framework, as it does re-define how the learning process takes place (collaborative, constructivist, peer review, etc.)
- The SAMR model has proven to be a very useful tool for experienced teachers wanting to integrate technology into the classroom, and to assess its potential impact. However, in order to fully leverage the potential that technology can bring into the classroom, I believe we also need to pay closer attention to the main variable in the education equation, that is: the learner. And for this purpose, I have looked at Robert Gagne’s ‘Conditions for learning’ , which the American psychologist first published in 1965. What may be interesting to note is that Gagne was first known as a cognitive psychologist, and started working on training for the US military. He also explored the potential of computer aided learning.
- Gagne identified 5 different domains of learning, although he did dwell mainly on the intellectual skills domain. What is very important to retain, is that Gagne’s believed that the variables influencing the learning of tasks in one domain, may not influence the learning of tasks in other domains. Therefore, findings can be generalised for tasks of the same domain, but not for tasks of other domains. As an example, repetition will help learning key telephone numbers; the same strategy can be applied to learning the declination of Latin nouns and adjectives. However, this strategy will not help with the learning of a new concept (e.g. a mathematical concept, or the understanding of when to use the ablative instead of the dative case). Each domain will therefore have its own, relevant conditions of learning. So if we juxtapose the SAMR model, we can start looking in more detail at how technology interacts with learning, and start discerning which technology may be more useful in each domain.
- Gagne also believe that there is a hierarchy of learning, listed in order of complexity. He believed that the basic skills must be learned before being able to advance to more complex skills. Problem Solving is at the top of the pyramid, which means it is the most difficult learning skill – but not the most important. All 9 skills are equally important, as each builds on the success of the previous one. Here too we can juxtapose the SAMR model, and go into more detail to discover which technology can help each learning skill, and how.
- Once the learning domains and the learning skills have been defined, Gagne identified 9 ‘instructional events’ that should be used as a more or less rigid framework for the instructional design, i.e. to plan and deliver the lessons. His idea of instructional design was to start with the goal in mind, and then to work backwards. (e.g. to stay with previous examples, know how to apply a mathematical concept, or understand the rules of grammar). It starts with potentially small steps (e.g. Reception, this is about gaining attention, and can be something as simple as clapping your hands. Very didactical, very effective. From the few anecdotal evidences I have seen, this approach seems to suit well when preparing lesson – with the exception were the learning outcome is meant to be the process itself. In other words, if the teacher is trying to establish how a learner is tackling a task, as opposed to the outcome of the task, then the framework appears to be too rigid. In any case, we can again try to juxtapose Gagne’s framework with SAMR, to get a detailed understanding of how technology may be a help for each event.
- Technology has been deployed across all sections of life, to various degrees of success. Health, transportation, energy, defense, etc. I am particularly interested to see if we can produce a useful analysis of how technology is deployed and used in the consumer market. This is because I believe there are some similarities between the way the consumer market is driven, and the way some processes happen in education. Looking at some of Gagne’s instructional events, it seems to me that some parallels can be drawn. Is there a way we can dig deep and break down the processes involved to their smallest common denominator, to see if they can be applied in education as well? Or would that be like comparing apples with oranges?
- Let’s take a look again at Gagne’s instructional events. And please note that the events described are to be followed in that order for the instructional design to be functional and successful. It seems to me that the consumer market is pretty good at using technology in probably all of the above events. You will probably be able to recognise a lot of activities in stages 1-6 in various marketing campaigns. These seem to be the most obvious ways how technology is being used , i.e. how to gain our attention, how tell us about the products, stimulating our interest and driving us to buy a product or service (i.e. ‘Eliciting performance’). Tanner and Raymond list five stages in a consumer’s purchasing process: Need recognition, search for product information, product evaluation, product choice and purchase, post purchase use and evaluation of produce and, finally, the disposal of the product. What I find particularly interesting however is how technology is also being used to extend the purchasing experience, well beyond the simple transaction.
- Let’s take a look again at Gagne’s instructional events. And please note that the events described are to be followed in that order for the instructional design to be functional and successful. It seems to me that the consumer market is pretty good at using technology in probably all of the above events. You will probably be able to recognise a lot of activities in stages 1-6 in various marketing campaigns. These seem to be the most obvious ways how technology is being used , i.e. how to gain our attention, how tell us about the products, stimulating our interest and driving us to buy a product or service (i.e. ‘Eliciting performance’). Tanner and Raymond (2010), in their book ‘Principles of Marketing’, analyse consumer behaviour and how people make buying decisions; they list 6 stages in a consumer’s purchasing process: Need recognition Search for product information Product evaluation Product choice and purchase Post purchase use and evaluation of produce The 6th and last stage refers to the ‘Disposal of the product’, which we can discard for the analogy with the learning process. I have tried to juxtapose the first five stages with Gagne’s instructional events. Some of you may think this is rather far fetched, and that I am in fact forcing principles of two completely different areas of human life into a very artificial and subjective conclusion, based on emotions and intuitions. Well, this is in part true, as I have not done any actual research into this – but then again, you are the psychologists, perhaps you could take this up! What I find particularly interesting is how technology is being used to extend the purchasing experience, well beyond the simple transaction.
- Social media adds an important layer of communication in our interaction with technology. Some well known internet businesses, like Trip Advisor, Uber or eBay, make very extensive use of this. In fact, to a certain degree it can be argued that the important, and expensive, aspect of consumer market is actually pushed back into the consumers’ hands: assessment and evaluation of the services. By doing so, consumers somehow become active agents in the whole process – in educational terms, we may talk about a constructivist approach being taken. So these things are happening, and are happening with a great impact in the consumer market. You know that feedback has a huge impact on consumers decision because you can hear and read about the fake feedbacks being generated by consumers and providers alike.
- Let’s go back to the learner. We have seen that the SAMR model focuses on the potential of technology in education. We have used Gagne to understand if we can connect the potential of technology to the cognitive processes behind the learning experience. However, we are still far from finding a more individualised solution on the potential application of technology in education.
- If we are able to connect stages of the learning process to the actual potential of each technology, I believe we have managed to build a strong base. As a next step, however, I believe we should also go inside the learners, to discover more intrinsic aspects such as their motivation, or their intellectual potential, their social and emotional context, etc. To this end, I am working on an article with Prof Komarov, to try to combine the potential assessment of technology with the potential assessment of individual learners. I am sure you will hear more from Prof Komarov and his exciting discoveries during this conference.
- And with this, I would like to thank you for your patience.