Another dot in the blogosphere?

Posts Tagged ‘development

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.

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?

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.

When I read an article that claimed even Apple is acknowledging that the “iPads in education” fad is coming to an end, I came to one conclusion: The article was guilty of misdirection.

The article pointed in every direction except the important one, i.e., how schools might buy technology and head in the wrong direction.

The title of the article was clickbait. It lured with the possibility of reading about how Apple admitted wrong even though there is no mention of it.

There was mention of Apple being “disappointed” by a survey’s results and the company allowing a district to switch iPads for MacBook Airs. However, the report did not state that Apple actually acknowledged that iPads in education was a fad and that it was coming to an end.

The article is guilty of misdirection, just like the school district, its leaders, and its teachers might have been. How do I know?

Consider teacher comments and statements like these:

  • “Largely gaming devices.”
  • “Students use them as toys. Word processing is near to impossible.”
  • One teacher in Virginia thought giving her third graders an iPad would enhance their learning.
  • According to one of the teachers surveyed, tablets provided “no educational function in the classroom.”

The kids are likely to expect to use iPads in school the same way they use them outside school, e.g., to play games, to watch YouTube videos, to chat with friends. If adults are honest, that is how they use devices like iPads too.

Yet the expectations of adults or teachers is not that of kids. They are unrealistic and even ridiculous.

If they would not consider typing on an iPad screen, why should they expect their students to do so? That said, kids who get used to typing on a screen might surprise adults who think that this is an inferior process.

The language of teachers reveals evidence of fixed mindsets. For example, teachers expect the iPad to enhance learning. Why merely enhance and not actually enable learning? (The former makes the technology optional while the latter makes it essential.)

If a teacher complains that the devices have “no educational function”, what functions do they mean? Are they thinking about more efficient delivery of content, ready-made tests that are quickly and easily scored, and babysitting devices?

Are teachers expecting iPads to do what can already be done? Or are they willing to change and try something new, different, and better?

Incidents like the ones reported in the article seem to keep playing on a loop everywhere. They are reminders to leaders and teachers not to get devices without rigorous professional development that changes the mindsets and expectations of teachers. Only then might behaviours change.

This blog entry by David Geurin reminded me why I shudder when I hear these two words put together: Teacher and training.

My stance has not changed, when I was a professor and teacher educator then, and as a provider of professional development now for teachers, lecturers, instructors, and yes, trainers.

You can potty-train a child. You can train a dog to do tricks. You can train people in first aid, handling weapons, evacuation procedures, and other standard operating procedures. You do this to create what some like to call muscle memory. This is suitable for situations where compliance applies.

This is the opposite of what is required of the teacher today. Gone are the days of simply opening a textbook and reading from it. A robot can do that, which is why this projection predicts that teachers are less unlikely to be replaced by them.

That is, teachers who do not behave like robots and are not trained like them.

The problem with the word “training” is the need to standardise, and in the process, favour efficiency over effectiveness. Who knows what works best from one classroom to the next? If we want teachers to move away from the one-size-fits-all way of thinking, we should not be training them.

I prefer to use “professional development” and not as a mere substitute for “training”. I think of my workshop participants as professionals the same way different types of doctors and lawyers are professionals. Just like in those fields, the contexts, methods, and content areas are in a state of flux. This requires a constant state of development on how teachers need to think for themselves.

By comparison, training is relatively simple. Professional development is more complex because it is about shaping mindsets before attempting to change behaviours. If training can be thought of as “don’t think, just do”, professional development is more like “don’t just do, think”.

People who do not think that Twitter can provide opportunities for teacher professional development (PD) have not stayed long enough, are not following the right people, or are not monitoring the right #hashtags.

A tweet like this one provokes thought.

The standard worksheet approach is what teachers have been weaned on and are comfortable with. Breaking out of that mould is difficult and seems counterintuitive. This is often why technology is used poorly and irresponsibly; it is used as a substitute for what can already be done without it.

Ask teachers what educational theories support the use of worksheets and they will likely struggle to answer with conviction. Ask them to explain “spaced practice” and suggest a logical way to implement it and quite a few will not be able to do so.

Likewise ask teachers, administrators, or leaders to think outside the normal PD box and you will hear the same excuses for doing what was done before. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Being face-to-face provides immediacy.

The problem with those excuses is that delivery-based teaching in one place and at one pace is no longer good enough. It is losing relevance in the workplace and the worker of today already cannot sit, much less stand, for it.

People often confuse immediacy with social context. When face-to-face, you can get a more immediate reply (whether such a reply is reflective or thorough is another matter). But being there in person does not make it a social experience, especially if the PD is designed so that one struggles alone.

On the other hand, #hashtagged chats can come alive with ideas and discussion. They might seem chaotic to the uninitiated, but spend enough time there and use tools like TweetDeck to silo topics and conversations, or Storify to clarify messages, and you start to see what modern teacher PD should look like.

If you do not believe me, see what a collection of teachers discussed on Twitter about this very topic a few days ago. I have compiled their tweets in Storify. This is the PDF version of the discussion.

Twitter is a viable method for teacher PD. It might start with a tweet that questions belief systems which then seeds conversations and prompts reflection. Such PD is self-organizing and allows teachers to find the PD that suits them based on time, place, and readiness.

When selecting conferences to attend, I prefer to visit a city and/or country I have not been to before. If I can, I bracket the session I am involved in with a bit of time on each side to explore the city.

I prefer to be my own tour guide when I travel. I book my own flights, arrange my own transport, and customize my own itinerary.

Map and Compass by Inky Bob, on Flickr
Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic License   by  Inky Bob 

When I help schools with educational technology or managing ICT-mediated change, I try to do the same as a tour guide or shepherd.

The courses, workshops, or experiences I provide are like custom tours. I ask school leaders and teachers where they want to go and what they want to see. I suggest an itinerary and we negotiate.

Alternatively, I operate as a shepherd who is called in to monitor progress at strategic intervals. I help to plan, observe, critique, or evaluate. Then I nudge my flock to places they need to go.

Click to see all the nominees!

QR code

Get a mobile QR code app to figure out what this means!

My tweets


Usage policy

%d bloggers like this: