Posts Tagged ‘development’
Seriously though
Posted on: December 27, 2021
This tweet is not just a funny play on “remotely”, it also reveals a fundamental difference between teaching in-person and online. You cannot simply transfer teaching skills and habits from a physical classroom to an online space and expect them to work.
One reason why classroom humour does not work even in a setup like Zoom is that social presence is not just about immediacy. It is also about the fact that the participants microphones are often muted.
Furthermore, Zoom and other video conferencing software are often set up as turn-taking platforms, not mass audience venues. Even when there are Zoom-based seminars, the speakers often cannot see or hear from their audiences.
So it is unreasonable to expect the same social effect or to complain about feeling disconnected. The tool simply does not work that way.
An educator who has to teach online needs to choose another tool, change expectations, and/or learn new skills. If getting immediate feedback is critical, then a platform like Twitch is an option. However, the feedback is largely text and emoji-based, and it can flow fast and furious. It takes much practice to quickly split attention between giving and getting.
This is just one of many professional development skills needed by educators who are serious about being online learning facilitators. Perhaps this is why schools and even entire ministries like our own MOE would rather avoid e-learning than embrace it.
They do this even though teachers would learn to teach better thanks to the constraints and opportunities of being online. This move is seriously no laughing matter.
Twitter-based PD
Posted on: September 16, 2021
Alas, the #edsg community on Twitter is long gone [archive]. But that does not mean that Twitter is no longer a source of informal professional development (PD) for me.
Here is a sample of tweets that I have bookmarked in the last month or two.
The content of this PD is unplanned and it arrives unpredictably. But it is timely because it is often the latest news about my professional interests. Sometimes it is serendipitous — it is relevant to something I am teaching that semester.
So if there is anyone pooh-poohing Twitter for PD, I say this: Don’t knock it until you have tried it. I joined Twitter in January 2007 and it has not failed me since.
Fear Factor: e-Learning Edition 4
Posted on: April 12, 2020
I challenged my audience in 2013 with a series of slides led by the one above. My intent then was to provide a fourth element in a loose but critical scaffold for thinking about MOOCs.
Back then, I asked them if adopting platforms like Coursera would serve their underserved (they evidence then was that it would not). I challenged them to ask difficult questions like: What might the consequences be if they did not rely on evidence-based planning and approaches?
Today I position this questioning element in the context of emergency remote teaching. How do we respond to the fear of asking and getting answers to the following questions?
- What mistakes did we make and what did we learn from them?
- Why were we not better prepared? How might we be better prepared?
- How do we level up our collective capacity towards seamless learning?
The last question might be informed with this useful framework from Scott McLeod.
The other questions require a brutal and honest look at ourselves. Will we remember enough and be brave enough to do that when we are on the other side of the COVID-19 curve?
Fear Factor: e-Learning Edition 3
Posted on: April 11, 2020
The context for this slide: It was 2013 and I was presenting to an audience more used to US English spelling (hence the spelling of “decentralizing”). More importantly, I was on the same mission of advising people to not make the same unnecessary mistakes that others had already made.
The advice I gave was simple. A teaching solution that is often presented before considering the learning problem is a vendor-provided learning management system (LMS). This creates lock-ins of platforms and tools, pedagogy, and finances.
All three lock-ins can have hidden elements. For example, you might already be invested a particular tool but that same tool is not compatible with the LMS. If you wish to get the equivalent tool or a new one, this is likely to come with additional cost. In any case, the likely end result is teaching to the whims of the tool instead of letting good pedagogy lead.
Today, that same advice might be recontextualised to not relying almost solely on a content management system (CMS) like our Student Learning System (SLS) or a video conferencing platform like Zoom.
One fear of having multiple platforms and tools is the loss of administrative and IT systems control. This is the top-down approach which is largely non-consultative and does not create ownership or empowerment among its users.
To be fair, you can rationalise the need for such an approach because users might not know what to use in a situation like COVID-19 lockdowns and home-based learning (or more accurately, emergency remote teaching). Having just one (or very few) tools and platforms also allows for system managers to provide more focused support.
However, this presumes that teachers and student have no idea what to do and use. This is not the case. Practically any system has its technology leaders, laggards, and those somewhere in between. The first group is likely to already be using some technology tools without sanctioned support. This can be a boon or a bane depending on how it is planned and managed.
The recent phenomenon of zoom-bombing — trolls joining and disrupting Zoom-based video conference calls — could be used as evidence of why the command-and-control approach works. If people try different tools and managers know that some tools are better and safer than others, why let those people use inferior and unsafe tools?
However, that question is a flawed premise because a small group of administrators and IT folk do not and cannot know as much as a large group of users trying and testing different tools. If just a small portion of active users manages to identify flaws with a platform like Zoom (and there are many), they are a valuable source of testing and information. They could — and have — advised on NOT using Zoom in the first place.
Why rely on actual users instead of administrators and IT folk for testing, analysis, and critique? They are actual users who will use and “abuse” the tools for teaching, learning, and unanticipated ways. They will not think and operate along the lines of spreadsheets, policy, security, etc. They will use the tools authentically.
So the issue is not the loss of control in decentralising technology initiatives. It is the coordinated planning, evaluation, and sharing of such tools and their practices. The fear of losing control is misplaced and misguided. The energy that is wasted here could be channeled to coordinated decentralisation.
Fear Factor: e-Learning Edition 2
Posted on: April 10, 2020
When I shared this idea at a conference in 2013, it was a call to be avoid being totally or blindly reliant on vendor-provided learning management systems (LMS). Right now the principle applies to emergency remote teaching: Do not be reliant on just one platform for video conferencing, e.g., Zoom. Why not? This is my Diigo archive for Zoom-related woes and alternatives.
Today, I would position this thought a bit differently. The closed system would not just be the LMS (which learners lose access to sooner than later), it would be about the closed professional development system.
Progressive schools see the value of mentoring new teachers and continuously developing the professional capacity of all teachers. They do so with events like internal sharing sessions and vendor-conducted workshops. If timely and relevant, these benefit the teachers in that school’s ecosystem.
However, some schools operate as closed systems, i.e., they do not share what they learn openly and regularly so that others outside their school may also learn. If other schools behave the same way, that school does not benefit from the mistakes, lessons, and ideas of the other schools.
It can be difficult to open up tightly closed systems. It might not be worth the trouble to do so given the many other things that teachers already need to do. Fortunately, there is an approximately decade-old solution — social media.
Teachers all over the world have shared their dos and their don’ts in blogs, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. They do this even though school conditions and contexts differ. Why? Teachers and teaching remain constant at their core — how to improve teaching so that students learn better.
If you need evidence, you need only trawl the last month’s edu-Twitter streams. Teachers all over the world freely and openly have shared their ideas on how to design and conduct emergency remote teaching, offered tips on synchronous and asynchronous lessons, outlined stay-at-home plans, and more.
There is still a fear that being so open is risky. But sharing your ideas with other teachers is not a zero-sum game. Giving ten ideas does not mean you lose those ten. In all likelihood you will receive the gratitude of other teachers, suggestions on how to improve your own ideas, and raise your reputational capital.
I say this to administrators, policymakers, or teachers who have Fear 2: You risk nurturing teachers who are risk-averse if you do not encourage them to share openly and responsibly. These teachers then cannot model similar behaviours for their students.
Fear Factor: e-Learning Edition 1
Posted on: April 9, 2020
I was looking for an image in my Google Photo archive when I spotted an unrelated one (screenshot below). I revisited the resource of that screenshot and discovered that it was still relevant today.
In 2013, I was invited to give a talk about e-learning. The host had one main request: Focus on MOOCs (because they were still the flavour of the moment). MOOCs are passé now, but some overarching reminders about e-learning are pertinent as we head into an intense period home-based learning (HBL).
Our HBL is still largely emergency remote teaching and not quite the quality that e-learning can be. So I reorient the four ideas I shared in 2013 to the circumstances of 2020. In particular, I focus on how we might shape our thoughts before we emerge on the other side of COVID-19 isolations.
The first fear of e-learning is FOMO. This could include the fear on not having access to tools like Zoom or content repositories. (Side note: Zoom is not a good tool and there are several alternatives).
If actions belie thoughts, then the fear among planners and policymakers seems to be the availability on ready-made tools and resources. While we cannot ignore those, it relegates a more important factor. If there is a better fear, it should be: What if my teachers are not prepared to teach remotely?
Providing all the best tools and resource but not providing timely and relevant professional development is like giving ordinary drivers the best Formula 1 cars and tracks but not teaching them how to drive under those circumstances.
What superficially looks like “just driving” in every-day and Formula 1 surfaces could not be more wrong. The latter person is a high performance athlete with top conditioning, support, and pressure. Likewise, good e-learning is facilitated well only by a relative few who have studied and honed their craft.
We would not expect an ordinary driver to be comfortable with Formula 1 racing. Likewise, we should not expect classroom-bred teachers to take to online facilitation even in an emergency. If we recognise this gap in performance, then we are missing out on preparation on how to design and facilitate online sessions. Worry about that, too!
I continue with fear factor #2 tomorrow.
127:1 vs 10:1?
Posted on: April 18, 2018
I was a graduate student when I first found out about the disproportionate amount of time it took to prepare e-learning resources.
The ratio of development time (input) to learning time (output) varies. A fairly recent and oft quoted study by Chapman cited 127 developmental hours for every hour of e-learning (127:1). This ratio was for Level 2 e-learning developed relatively quickly from templates.
According to Chapman, the research data originated from 3,947 instructional designers (or people with similar roles) representing 249 companies.
The ratio might sound impressive because the numbers are a result of the efforts of corporate teams responsible for organisational e-learning. Such ratios are also rules-of-thumb sought by freelancers to provide estimates for potential clients.
I do not recall the number being so high when I was graduate student. However, back then the technologies did not include the more social, augmented, and virtual ones we have now.
That said, I do not know of any responsive learning organisation that can afford to invest 127 preparatory hours for an hour of standards-based training or e-learning. A freelance instructional designer (ID) would have to work thinner, lighter, and faster to compete for and retain clients.
ID work is a small part of my consulting work as I have to factor in many other considerations, e.g., institutional policies, social contexts, group dynamics.
I have kept track of my preparatory time in my latest consulting effort. Without revealing details covered by a non-disclosure agreement, I can say that the effort focuses on a small group of educators who need guidance in a form of communication.
The situation is dynamic as I have to respond to volatile schedules. I often have little time for preparatory work. For example, I gave myself a week to prepare a just-in-time segment for participants. I took 30 hours over six days to prepare for a 3-hour blended session. This is a 10:1 ratio.
So is my effort (10:1) less than worthy of a corporate one (127:1)? Based only on numbers, it is. Based on quality — my knowledge of context; the blending of content, pedagogy, and media; the attention to detail — I would argue not.
Underutilised or misused?
Posted on: July 4, 2016
This was a tweet that was both funny and sad.
Many people in the so-called first world carry phones in their pockets or bags that are portals to the world’s information. They seem to be underutilised when their typical use is “to look at pictures of cats and get into arguments with strangers”.
Not just these uses, of course, but more of the same. As a result, these are very much less than what phones could be used for.
I say that phones are misused, particularly in schools, if their full power is not harnessed. Today’s mobile phones are not just handy Google portals. They are also:
- Connectors to more knowledgeable others
- Collators of news and information
- Providers of sounding boards
- Oases of ideas
- Amplifiers of messages
- Translators of many languages
- Tools for making e-portfolio artefacts
- Navigators to resources and treasures
- Monitors and managers of our time and energy
And so much more.
But so little of this potential is used for learning in schools because dominant pedagogy is shaped by the past and driven by fear. Consider how the list of possibilities quickly becomes one of worries about:
- Cheating
- Misinformation
- Spreading propaganda
- Radical indoctrination
- Creating confusion
- Wasting of time and energy
The same tool or instrument in different hands does different things.
A hammer in the hands of a vandal destroys public property. A hammer in the hands of a skilled worker repairs that damage.
A violin in the hands of an amateur might sound like a cat being disembowelled. A violin in the hands of an artist soothes the savage beast.
The difference in mindset and practice is down to the type of teachers and how we prepare them. The type of teachers is a function of recruitment. Preparation is a function of professional development. Recruitment does not offer a perfect filter; professional development is an attempt to manage the people you have.
If teachers are underutilising mobile technology or misusing it, what are we doing to right this wrong?
Do not slack
Posted on: July 2, 2016
Something kept appearing in my feeds earlier this week. It was the news [1] [2] [3] that a few teachers got fired after they complained about and insulted students while using Slack, a private messaging platform.
Private became public when 18 pages of exchanges were leaked to students and teachers of that school.
You can imagine the damage control measures that both the service company and school might have taken. Like most news cycles involving “educational” technology faux pas, this pattern ensues: Exposé, investigation, judgement, commentary and witch hunt, communiqués, lull. Repeat.
No one would condone the behaviour of the teachers. No one other than criminal lawyers perhaps.
However, the teachers were communicating amongst themselves in private (or at least as private as Slack claims to be). Someone or some party managed to get transcripts of their chat and then leaked them. Is this not an invasion of privacy?
This was not a case of “see something, say something” or something worthy of surveillance. If it was, then teacher chat in WhatsApp, email, or over coffee should be monitored.
In absolute terms, there is nothing truly private if it is expressed in some form. The larger issue is about being savvy. Not being technologically savvy, mind you, because that is not going to stop a persistent and savvier snooper.
No, the issue is whether teachers are socially and ethically savvy as they embrace technology. Using an online tool does not make you invisible or invincible. It does not make you totally anonymous or grant you greater rights.
Being online amplifies who you are, what you say, and what you are perceived to be. This is how professional development (PD) that focuses only on technical savvy and not social savvy misses the point. The teachers who lost their jobs are a perfect case to deconstruct, reconstruct, and reflect on. If we fail to do this sort of PD, we fail our teachers.
Another dot in the blogosphere? 