Scratch+Pad+Statement+2

Scratch pad for Team Statement 2:

Here are some musings on recent readings (notably Hedberg) that could be integrated into final statement 2:
 * need complete "re-engineering of the learning design rather than repackage content into electronic forms" (Oliver & Herrington, 2003). When I first entered this course, I was naively inclined to organize resources in a pre-determine order according to structured learning approach, based on my personal education experience. However, this mirrors classroom practice and is not truly a "disruptive" innovation (Hedberg). I really the whole approach needs to be re-thought. Need to give learners the choice of resources and take control of their knowledge construction. However, this assumes a high level of students' IT literacy skills.
 * the teacher's role shifts to that of facilitator, providing part of the support/scaffolding until student learning independently (Oliver & Herrington, 2003). There will be times to be transmissionist/‘instructionist’/ didactic - i.e. there is a “time to tell” - but ideally this will shift to more emancipative approach giving students the freedom to become "learner as designer", "learner as author", etc.
 * in terms of time allocation as teacher, a lot of time will go into the planning phase, where ponder learning outcomes and considering how technology facilitate learning rather than just bolted add-on for "technology's sake".
 * additional time will be required designing assessment and evaluation of student knowledge acquisition.
 * a lot of effort is currently invested in designing technology for specific content; however the way of the future would seem to be to invest effort in the design of e-learning settings that best promote the learners' knowledge construction and can be adapted across different content (Oliver & Herrington, 2003).

Some thoughts from me, mostly agreeing with Carina, with some added points and a few "yes, or"s
 * I think we are just at the beginning of hitting the critical requirements for technologies to become disruptive in education. The history of most disruptive technologies is not in a great wave of change, but in iterative shifts. We start by becoming familiar and comfortable with the tech.Some teachers are past this point, others are still on their way.
 * Then we try revolutionary ideas in isolation - one major project a year run under LAMS or some such. An excursion using tech in a natural and unobtrusive, but fundamental to the pedagogy kind of way.
 * Then, as the patterns model formalises, but we all use informally, we start to see patterns of pedagogical solutions, all seasoned with KLA specifics. Teachers do need time to build these, but it might happen over years, rather than by losing their life to it for a few months or a year. Each time they perfect a pattern or model, it gets filed away for re-use (along with constant tweaking, but that's not so time intense).
 * Tech, and platforms such as LAMS and other models, allow teachers to share their successful models, and make use of others' successes, further reducing the time needed to be invested by any given teacher.
 * Every time someone realises that this unit of work could be taught in a totally different way, another piece of the old way of doing things is eroded. I have a very optimistic view of how this can change teaching forever, as long as it's allowed to progress naturally, and teachers are forced to adopt tech they don't understand.
 * Direct instruction has already been revolutionised in most universities, with all lectures being recorded, at least in audio and often as vodcast. Personal experience suggests that this is much more emancipative than this course suggests - everyone I know who has studied this way engages with these lectures differently, and everyone finds it dramatically improves their learning experience.

And since I've had such long-winded opinions, I'll volunteer to make a first pass at synthesising our ideas down to the teeny word limit, once Gagan's brought her thoughts (which should be interesting if you're doing a different elective!). :)

Throughout the duration of this learning experience, there are numerous ideas which have been identified and clarified with regards to digital learning in schools. The three key concepts which I have become aware of are methods to better utilise e-learning in education, the potential for misuse of technology and the ability of technology to engage students of a wide variety of academic abilities.
 * My previous believe was that I took for granted the use of e-learning in University education, and felt a similar framework could be successful in secondary education. John Hedberg identified that more than half of the university students surveyed viewed e-learning as a tool of preparation and logistical organization, as opposed to actually developing a depth of knowledge. In my view a similar system could be established and/or further developed in secondary schools, where students are able to access additional information, previous class notes, practice exam questions, work sheets and logistical documents online. Such as WebCT or e-learning domain would present very differently to that of a tertiary institution, as the amount if self directed learning in school would be slightly less than of a University.
 * Hedberg also suggests a four step continum for developing the use of e-learning in education. The final step Hedberg suggests is altering the structure of the course to promote e-learning and online education. This will again occur very differently in secondary schools compared to unis, however the shift had already begun in a number of small ways. What will be interseting to see is a further shift in this four stage contnum towards a re-design of secondary education e-learning.
 * The key component of technological learning has been clarified as use of technology as a means for learning. Very true technology can be widely used in schools as a means of learning, however should not be the primary ends of learning. That is to say that the main focus for education must still be the prescribed syllabus, where learning is enhanced by the use of technology. It would be face too easy to slip into the trap of ensuring the students know how to use technology to their advantage in a highly technoremelogical society, but what we must remember is that students attend school to understand and have greater depth of the prescribed syllabus.
 * The final point is that the use of technology has potential to engage students of varying abilities. I experienced during my observatoion week of my first prac that students who were apthetic towards chemistry were suddenly engaged, willing to learn and actually keen to be involved ( they made their own atoms using computer simulation , Ariane discussed it in her earlier posts).

Finally, technology is not the focus of learning but a means to teach prescribed content.