Posts Tagged ‘sdl’
When I was a boy, I had to wind my wristwatch and use a key to coil a spring in household clocks. Today it seems like the only way to get wound up by a watch is when its battery runs flat.
You can either bring the watch to a shop to get the battery changed, or you can attempt it yourself. When I first watched how someone else did it and how much the battery and service cost, I decided that I would do it myself in future.
Back then it looked like a specialised or skilled task. It is not any more. There are numerous websites and YouTube videos that show you how to open up the watch yourself and swop the battery. Many of these resources are brand or model specific.
I change my wife’s and my watch batteries once a year or every two years, so I sometimes forget my self-taught lessons.
A recent reminder was how rare some batteries are.
I had to find an equivalent for a battery for a dress watch because the exact brand and type was not available in hardware stores here. So I searched online, found the equivalent types, and made price comparisons. I saved anywhere between five to ten times the cost by DIY compared to going to a shop.
The result of this exercise was a renewed appreciation for how easy it is to be a self-directed learner nowadays. All this is because we have accessible platforms and creators who share openly.
The timely reminders are that we need to create conditions for this sort of learning and nurture learners who not only know how to consume helpful content, but also how to give back by creating and sharing.
Here is a lesson on video-based learning as applied outside the schooling bubble.
Watch this video of a 12-year-old girl who taught herself dubstep dancing by watching YouTube videos.
Administrators, instructional designers, and teachers might be seduced by the sentiment that the girl expressed: “It benefits you by rewinding, pausing… you can watch it over and over again, but in a classroom you can’t do that.” This is also what a vendor might say.
The self-taught dancer went on to say that the Internet was her generation’s way of learning things.
I do not deny those two points, but if we focus only on the technical affordances of YouTube videos and what seems to be a generational difference, we focus on the wrong things.
A video simply being on YouTube does not drive the learning. It is the learner that does this. In the words of the girl in the video:
If you’re on the Internet, you can really learn and teach yourself… You can do anything if you really have a passion for it.
What YouTube has done is made self-directed and truly independent learning possible. What the learner must do is desire to learn, search, watch, curate, practice, critique, and create. All are desirable outcomes, are they not?
This is the first part of my week-long focused reflection on flipping.
I posted a rather cryptic tweet in the aftermath of #educampsg and in response to a query on flipping.
I unpack the tweet by illustrating with questions or comments that I get frequently from teachers.
One thing that troubles some teachers is the link between flipping and self-directed learning. They realize that for both flipped classrooms and flipped learning to be successful, students must learn to be more independent and self-motivated. However, they put the cart before the horse when they ask questions like: “Doesn’t flipping only favour students who are self-directed?” or “How do I ensure that students complete pre-class work?”
This sort of thinking presumes that self-directedness must be a prerequisite to flipping. They reason that if their students are not motivated, they will not consume content before class and flipping breaks down at the very first step. Furthermore, since academically strong students tend to be more motivated, teachers often make the assumption that flipping favours such students. Since students are not likely to cooperate or if flipping only seems to benefit a few, teachers reason that it is not worth the effort.
That is not how to approach flipping. I argue that well-designed and skillfully-managed flipping is one way of nurturing self-directed learners.
In a conventionally flipped class, a teacher might find out that only half of his/her class watched a video, completed a webquest, or collected some data beforehand. Flipping breaks down if the teacher opts to deliver content again in class. The students who refused to play their part get their way and the ones who followed instructions feel cheated.
A persistent educator will resist the urge to give in and might instead apply social pressure on those who have not completed their work prior to class. This could mean pursuing the in-class activity that is linked to and builds on the out-of-class activity, e.g., a Flubaroo-graded quiz. Both the teacher and the students who did work beforehand apply pressure on those who did not.
This takes time to work and can be very effective should students be provided access to resources whether at home or in school, and if school leaders and parents support the teacher. The students who do not play ball then run out of reasons to not join in the game.
Now all that said, a learner-centred teacher could also provide leeway to those who did not do the work beforehand but were still able to answer questions, solve problems, or complete tasks acceptably. The students could be quick learners or learn non-linearly by picking up cues and clues in class. This means that having self-directed learners is less of an issue here; the capacity of the teacher to differentiate instruction is.
Flipping is not the end result of having self-directed learners; it is a means to that end. Flipping is not a just a product of teachers who are already skilled in differentiating instruction; it is a means for teachers to learn how to do this.
About a week or two ago, I read a digest on school-related news with a equal measure of amusement and dismay.
Unnamed teachers lauded the yet to be named online portal of 2016 that promises to provide customizable content for learners. Even though “portal” is overused or sometimes improperly used, it was not what amused or dismayed me.
What did was the fact that teachers believed that the officially-sanctioned resources would promote self-directed learning (SDL) among learners.
These were press reports, of course, and you cannot expect non-teachers to understand that SDL is a continuum of behavior. Heck, I know that some teachers think that SDL is limited to them directing students to read something outside class on their own time.
I was dismayed that SDL is still misunderstood. I was mildly amused that some teachers think that a portal is a solution.
The expectation around a portal is that it is a place and that “if you build it they will come”. If you make it really good or seem very important, then even more will come.
But this was the promise of schools subscribing to content and learning management systems. Such technological systems have been used in old ways (repositories) or relegated to the periphery (e-learning days). I hope that from the CMS and LMS we have learnt that “you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink”.
The horse will only drink if it is thirsty.
SDL is tied to mindsets, motivation, and methods. It could be driven by the individual learner or by heutagogical practices of a teacher. A portal is not necessarily going to incentivise it or guarantee it.
Only thirsty learners are going to find the water and drink it. Responsible educators are going to show them how to find and drink from good sources of water. A portal is not going to create that natural thirst or provide that metacognitive skillset.
This is my third short video in the CeL-Ed series. Right at the end I mention how playing Minecraft can promote self-directed learning.
My son taught me this. I have observed him doing this. I have done this myself. So I share this with others.
I am pooped from conducting a workshop at NIE yesterday but looking for more “punishment” by conducting part two and three off site this week.
Here is what a video game-based learning workshop to teach self-directed, collaborative, and blended learning looks like.
And if you like pretty-looking things that might not have meaning for you, take a peek at my opening briefing. Slides created with Haiku Deck.
I fished this useful resource, The Four Stages Of The Self-Directed Learning Model, from my Twitter stream recently.
My critique is not so much the model but the temptation to use a descriptive model prescriptively. It is like history repeating itself with Bloom’s Taxonomy. Some folks interpret the model to mean that one should start at stage 1 and move up progressively.
What is wrong with prescriptive interpretations? For one thing, that there may be a fixed starting point, and for another, a directionality of progression.
Presuming that most people start at ground zero is like telling someone with access to a fibre optic Internet connection to start with dialup access, move on to DSL, and then to cable.
The problem with stages is that they are presented like stairs. If you skip stairs in real life, you risk injury. That mindset can get transferred to something like a model for self-directed learning (SDL).
Using the step-like analogy, do people not also walk down stairs? Some people will place value in the stages and typically higher is better.
This may be true of some models, but SDL is not a mono-directional process. You can be at stage 4 for something you are passionate about, but at stage 1 for something you are just learning. You are not at stage 2.5 on average.
You can move in between stages depending on the circumstances. Are you alone by choice or circumstance? Are you in the presence of knowledgeable others? Where you are in the spectrum of SDL is contextual and needs based.
Models can be misleading even though they may not be designed that way. Perhaps it is our need to simplify or compartmentalize that create problems.
Perhaps we need to be model literate. Perhaps, more simply, stage-like simplification is a step (ha!) towards more continuum-oriented, systemic thinking.