Posts Tagged ‘questions’
I had questions that I could not address in the limited time during my keynote as well as the panel at the end of the conference. These were from the pre-conference poll.
I wish to address these questions, but I will focus only on questions that I understand.
How to tie in GBL with small-wins or short-term rewards?
I have no idea how to do this with GBL because I have not implemented GBL with this design or intent. Nor will I ever. During the keynote I described how games could be integrated to focus on thinking skills, attitudes, values, and intrinsic motivation. These take time to develop and I would rather invest in these.
How would I use this technique if the University has a set of rules I have to follow and present?
The university (or partner university in your case) is unlikely to have rules about pedagogy. If it did, that is not a university that is looking to serve for today and tomorrow.
You know the content, context, and your learners best. The WHAT of a prescribed curriculum might be very full. The HOW is your responsibility and limited by your creativity.
Must it be IT based?
The “it” could be games or gamification. Both could be enabled with current technology or not. I gave examples of both during the keynote, so I have addressed that part of the question.
Here is the other part: ICT is a more current term than IT since the former is often more interactive and multi-way while the latter is more transmissive and about regulations.
What types of subjects are suitable for game based learning?
Any and all of them are suitable, especially if you do not limit yourself to content-based learning and expand the possibilities to include critical and creative thinking, socio-emotional learning, soft skills, attitudes and values, etc.
Can Gamification ideas be implemented not through a game but just mere teaching activity?
Gamification does not employ games; it uses deconstructed elements of games, e.g., points, levelling up, leaderboards.
Your question seems to hint at game-like instruction. There are strategies like putting the problem (assessment) first or early, and focusing on just-in-time learning instead of just-in-case front loading.
I would like to try this approach but I am afraid it might take up a lot of the class time. How do I go about it without sacrificing too much of the contact time?
Can you have a cake and not eat it? 😉
Something has to give and if it comes to that, you might have to use your judgement to see what to push out in order include something else.
How viable would it be to introduce gamification within a primary/secondary school classroom? The aim is to use gaming elements to increase engagement between the students and the teacher.
It is certainly viable, as apparent by the number of vendors and parties outside of schooling and higher education who want to do this.
Unfortunately, these groups sell you on the low-hanging fruit of “increased engagement”. Do not play this game because this is not why any technology-mediated strategy should be used.
Trying to engage is like trying to take control of light switches: You try to flip them on so that your students see the light. But they are just as easy to switch off or learners can move on to something else.
Engagement is something you do to try to help your students; empowerment is something you pass to students so they help everyone. By all means engage, but do not forget to empower. Vendors might tell you how to engage with gamification; I would rather see learners empowered by game-based learning.
how to know which game is appropirate [sic] for teaching when we don’t game?
You do not and cannot know. So play!
My replies to these questions might have a perceived tone. I assure the askers that my replies come from a good place and with good intent: I want us to collectively change and improve our practice.
Participants of the session observed how the panel and I approached the Q&A. The same tone and concern should be applied here.
The tweet that linked to this article on “coding” enrichment asked the wrong question: Should parents be adding coding classes to their children’s already-packed schedules?
The better questions that any well-informed educator and parent might ask are:
- After investigating: How is this “coding”?
- How is this different from other enrichment sold here?
- Does enrichment mean “good to have” but not “must have”?
- Does this “coding” focus on the more important “computational thinking”?
- Can computational thinking be taught and learnt in other ways? What are these ways?
- Why is “coding” still a separate domain instead of integrated into interdisciplinary learning?
- How is this preparing a child for future if the designs are based on backward models and not sustained?
Have you processed the critical discourse on “coding”? For example:
- American Schools are Teaching our Kids How to Code All Wrong
- Please Don’t Learn to Code
- Will the Push for Coding Lead to ‘Technical Ghettos’?
- Coding Academies are Nonsense
- Kids Need To Learn Digital Literacy—Not How To Code
- Don’t Just Learn to Code, Learn How to Think Like a Computer Scientist
If you do not see the point of the questions or critical discourse, I have something you need to buy.
Yesterday I responded to a query about how flipping drives discovery and student-directed learning.
Today I answer a question about how students might not discover the “right” content by discovering or Googling. I have a few responses.
The first is doing away with the notion that students “get it” only when a teacher delivers content. This is merely an illusion because there is no indication or confirmation that learning has happened.
My second response is that one way to be more certain about student learning is to get students to create content and to teach it. These processes help both students and teachers to see evidence of learning.
My third reply is that teaching wrong content happens anyway, not just in the flipped classroom or when you facilitate flipped learning. Both the student and teacher can be guilty of this. However, when the learning is visible the teacher can jump in and intervene.
This is why I include content creation and peer teaching in my model of flipped learning.
Peer teaching is something that instructors can do with strategies like think-pair-share, any variant of the jigsaw method, and class presentations. Content creation might be viewed as a prerequisite for this form of teaching. Without artefacts students have nothing to show during the tell.
However, content creation does not always have to be on the teacher scale or standard. The content that students create can also be externalisations or manifestations of what is in their minds. These can take the form of short reflections, practiced problems, recorded conversations, summary documents, etc.
My fourth response is to agree that simply copying and pasting Google search results may not be valuable learning. Most teachers tend to focus on content from an expert’s point of view. This is how they judge if content is good or not, and right or wrong. However, this is not how a learner processes information because s/he does not have structure.
The structure is put in place by thinking processes. So instead of just focusing on content (what artefacts students find and use), the teacher should also model processes of learning. For example:
- How do I look for information?
- How do I verify information or evaluate it?
- How do I incorporate it into my own work?
This response is not unique to flipping. But a focus on process over product is particularly important in flipped learning because one desired outcome is students who are more independent learners.
Yesterday I reflected on my long-running integration of Padlet in my courses and workshops. I intend to share screenshots of two sets of takeaways and questions from participants at the end of a workshop on flipped learning. I address one concern today and another tomorrow.
One concern was whether students uncover content in the way the teacher intended.
I am glad that the participant used the word “uncover” because that was something we practised during the workshop. Uncovering is based on discovery and not on the traditional notions of a fixed curriculum, recipe-like strategies, and narrow outcomes.
This does not mean that the process is haphazard. In the past, I have described the implementation as creating serendipity.
One way to design the learning experience is to envision a large plot of land in which you have buried opportunities for learners to unearth. They not only dig up treasures (content-based learning about), they also figure out how to problem seek and problem solve (skills-based learning to be).
My reply to the query is that a strategy like flipping is a means of transferring the ownership of learning to the students. While the teacher is concerned with curriculum, schemes of work, worksheets, and other standard practices, these are not always congruent with the overall design and ultimate goal of flipping.
To put it simply, the standard terms, practices, and tools that a teacher is comfortable with are not necessarily what learners understand and need. The teacher may be armed with a spoon to feed; the students need shovels and other more varied and complex tools.
The teacher may be prepared to deliver; the students need to discover. It is inevitable that the scope of what the teacher expects will be much narrower than what the students discover.
Returning to my analogy of the plot of land with buried treasure, what if students discover relevant and useful nuggets elsewhere? What if they go beyond just digging (e.g., clicking on links in web quests) to surveying with drones and satellites (e.g., Googling, YouTubing) or communicating with previous treasure hunters (e.g., tweeting content experts, consulting Facebook contacts)?
One concern that teachers might have is what if students unearth the “wrong” things? I address that concern tomorrow.
This STonline article featured kids who were getting tuition years in advance of what they might be ready for. To be more precise, their parents were arranging enrichment tuition for their children to stay ahead whether their kids were ready or not.
I will not rant about the state of enrichment classes here as I have written about this sometimes ugly form of tuition before. I focus on one element of the article: The sample of three questions asked of students seeking Direct School Admission.
Are these the best questions we can muster for DSA students? DSA is meant to not just focus on academic aptitude but also on values, attitudes, and character traits as well. Instead of waiting for interviews, portfolios, and observations, why not ask questions that matter?
I offer three questions of my own.
Question 1: You are a school prefect. You spot one student bullying another student outside of school. You realise that the bully is your best friend and the victim is a classmate. What do you do? Why?
Question 2: You were given $50 in cash as a birthday present from your grandparents. You decide to donate some, save some, and spend some. How much will you allocate for each purpose? Why?
Question 3: More and more of your classmates seem to be getting enrichment tuition. Consider Scenario A or Scenario B.
Scenario A: Your parents want you to have tuition every day after school. What will you say to your parents? Why?
Scenario B: You do not want to have tuition. How do you justify this decision to your parents?
The STonline article offered model answers to its questions. There are no fixed answers for mine. Instead, the focus is on values-based reasoning, critical and creative thinking, the clarity of communication, and a host of other skills.
Can you offer reasonable solutions to my questions? Can your children?
I had mixed thoughts when I read this TODAY article on makerspaces in Singapore schools.
I was glad that kids could get the opportunity to learn by designing, tinkering, failing, and persisting.
I was also reminded of articles that provided cautionary notes about such initiatives. Juliani wrote about how You Don’t Need A Makerspace to Be a Maker. Scherer advocated that Every Classroom Should Be a Maker Space.
I weighed in with a simple tweet that needs some elaboration.
Dr Ashley Tan (@ashley) April 24, 2016
The school computer laboratories were not available to all, they were costly to maintain, and some special rooms became white elephants with infrequent use.
Might school-based “makerspaces” with expensive 3D printers and sensitive tools become the new computer lab?
Specifically, are such places:
- Limited or open access?
- Peripheral or central to making and learning?
- Special or ordinary?
Can meaningful and powerful learning happen only here, and if so, why does this not happen in more classrooms?
Should the message that this sort of learning only happens in such places be transmitted by accident or even worse on purpose?
Are such spaces good-to-have or must-haves? Are they good for showing off to visitors or do they actually make difference to teachers and students?
Must a makerspace only be a physical one that learners do not own?
I am Ashley and this is my blog. It is one of the spaces that I take ownership of online in order to make myself and others learn.
This is not one of my better image quotes. It has been sitting in a Google Slide deck for a while. But the words are more important than the image.
I got the quote partly off a tweet from my Twitter stream a while ago. Unfortunately, I did not take note of the URL.
But I did keep track of the original CC-licensed image.