teaching and research

looks like would be worth a read- http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/13562510020029590 courtesy of one of my students (thanks)

more thoughts on teacher PD - what's the next step?

Just saw this on Twitter:

@rliberni RT @MZimmer557: Nice!- Have PD like a conference. Offer sessions and allow teachers to attend what meets their needs #edchat
 
It's got me thinking yet again about teacher PD and trying to avoid a one size fits all approach.
 
I think we do quite well, see earlier posts re acreditation, coaching, weekly generic sessions run in-house - mainly by our own staff, but with some external sessions as well.
 
I have tried to get a weekly 'this worked for me' session going too but no luck with that as yet. Maybe I could use the forum facility on our VLE for this and have a weekly edchat type thing there.
 
Now I do like the idea of choice of sessions though and I am going to think how we can organise that. Thanks for that @rliberni  and  @MZimmer557
 
comments welcome

developing online practice as teachers

I was at an Open University staff development day yesterday and helped to run two workshops on the topic of developing online practice. My aim for these sessions, with two different groups of people, and each lasting only an hour, was to have some brief mention of the tools available now but more time on the pedagogical issues which surround the changing face of our work with students. The participants varied both in terms of the subject/faculty they teach and also in terms of the level (openings to PhD). Many of them are also undertaking further post-graduate study themselves and this brought another dimension to our discussions. I was struck that we need to continue this debate and that the medium we were discussing might well afford the means to do so.

I started with an image (with due thanks and attribution to @republicofmath from Twitter):

the difference between wondering how and wondering what ...

I proposed the following suggestions:

• In any context, pedagogy should be embodied in the environment
• Web 2.0 is more about creating content than consuming it

We discussed briefly the concerns we had regarding web 1.0, in terms of teachers - was the information the students accessed valid? How would we ensure critically evaluative skills from students? We then moved on to consider the tensions with web 2.0 - co-construction of knowledge versus plagiarism, our self perception as teachers versus guides towards creative learning. I used video recording to enable me to enhance the notes that I made and also to promote discussion about the possibilities within teaching.

Across the two groups of people, several common themes emerged:

• we need to be wary of a tool without a purpose
• does the use of moodle forums promote academic rigour (especially if students are more used to participating in different ways via social networking)?
• Might rules about re-tweets actually enhance our explanations of proper attribution?
• how can forum participation be used for assessment purposes - and should it?
• Elluminate - is it more suited to some subject matter than others?
• what about equality of access?
• harassment issues, managing mischievous threads that could snowball quickly whilst the moderator is not there
• developing as writers, getting peer feedback
• peer review versus crowd review
• developing an argument
• workload for students and teachers
• more study skills packages
• the use of the media for staff development

There was much sharing of good practice:

• setting guidelines and boundaries within welcome letter
• giving generic feedback on the forum and personal feedback via assignments
• ensuring that any perceived authority or validity which is promoted by having a record through written or audio/video podcasts is openly acknowledged
• getting students to summarise threads
• sending reports of online interactions to staff tutors to help build up a bank of evidence
• being aware of ethical considerations

We just began on the debate about creativity and whether this is truly possible for undergraduates. We began to consider the role of collaborative assignments through blogs and wikis and how this could lead to an artifact of benefit not just to the participants but to a wider audience.

During the morning sessions we had, in different groups considered many other issues surrounding teaching and learning - especially in a distance learning situation where there is some online interaction and some face to face meeting time. The module on which I tutor involves students aged from early 20s to 60s and most are teachers or trainers. I often ask why they want to do MA study and other people do not. So far I have never come up with a definitive answer! But something said yesterday by a colleague was that 'learning should be troublesome'. In other words, learning is a perturbation - and I think that this may be taking us towards an idea of why some people do and some people do not. The same colleague mentioned the 'choreography' of the tutor - in both face to face and online contexts. None of this should be underestimated, nor the trepidation with which some students face these interactions - and how we can help by using avatars and audio podcasts and so on. As another colleague pointed out, only ten per cent of communication is via words - consider body language, facial expressions, gestures, even pheromones - though it's difficult to engineer that last!

I would love to continue the debate - perhaps here on this blog or through other ideas. If you were there, I have deliberately not named anyone but feel free to name yourself in a comment. Whether you were there or not, I would welcome further thoughts.

Oh just adding this: I forgot one brilliant suggestion that we do a Twitter backchannel next time so that others can follow and join in the discussion.

Also some reading:
Mitzmacher, J. (2010) Transparency as Pedagogy, A Floor but no ceiling? http://www.mjgds.org/mitzmacher/?p=135


Truss, D, (2007) Pair-a-dime for Your Thoughts http://pairadimes.davidtruss.com/statement-of-educational-philosophy/

Wheeler, S.(2010) Communities, spaces and pedagogies for the digital age http://www.slideshare.net/timbuckteeth/communities-spaces-and-pedagogies-for-the-digital-age#

phronesis

was reminded about phronetic research today - something I haven't thought about for a while

I wrote this some time back - any comments gratefully received

Flyvbjerg (2001) takes a articular view of the role of the social sciences in being able to generate theory. He asserts that there is little point in trying to generate empirical theories, such as in the natural sciences, since the very matter being subjected to investigation cannot be suitable for that approach. He bases his work on the Aristotelian division of knowledge into episteme (scientific, know why, irrefutable), techne (craft, know how) and phronesis (ethics, values, variable, context dependent). If we are investigating what is basically a value-laden human phenomenon, Flyvbjerg suggests that we should take a phronetic approach to our methodology. In such methodology, he suggests we ask the following questions (2001: 60):
1. Where are we going?
2. Is this desirable?
3. What should be done?
4. Who gains and who loses; by which mechanisms of power?

As he states, this means that there is an implicit investigation of values but he denies that this lays the approach open to criticisms of relativism since (ibid: 132) a “focus on relations of values and power” leads to interest from others than the researcher. These others will evaluate the research themselves so the phronetic researcher must deliberately assimilate the context and learn from it – without ‘going native’.

Henstrand (2006: 16) actually embraces the idea of ‘going native’, stating that “proponents of ethnomethodology” actively encourage the researcher to become involved with the group being studied in order to “understand the contextual meanings and avoid distorting the vision of the world” – here she cites Adler and Adler (1987: 32); “going native is the solution rather than the problem”.

On the topic of the richness of data and how this can lead, if not to a simple theory, then certainly to a clearer understanding of the situation, Flyvbjerg (ibid: 133) says that phronetic researchers must begin by asking “little questions” and, with patience and attention to detail, focus on Geertz’s (1973) “thick description”. Flyvbjerg would probably agree with Wright Mills: the problem with Grand Theories is that they are too general to ever be empirically observable.

teachers' self perceptions

Lately, I've been giving some thought to the tensions between teachers' self perceptions and their role in knowledge creation. I am starting to plan a workshop session on developing online pedagogy and it has thrown up all sorts of ideas and thoughts for me. If you can help me with any of this, I'd be very grateful indeed.

Surely, any pedagogy should be embodied in the environment? So if we are talking about traditional, face to face classrooms, or 'online tutorials', virtual lecture halls, whatever, we should be considering and planning for how we can encourage intellectual development? Here's an example:

I have popped into some Year 7 RE classes recently where 11 year olds are grappling with the difference between truth and knowledge. They refer back to the world that they live in - the world of social networking, mobile access to information, multimedia ..... and they test the veracity of that world.

In my other life, as an MA tutor on an education module, my last face to face tutorial really only needed me to ask the questions and step back.... with some guiding 'linkages' provided between the group discussions when drawing back together - just like managing a thread on a moodle forum then? Is this life imitating art?

I think it is fairly commonly accepted that web 2.0 is more about content creation than consumption. Does that mean that 21st century educators should be more focused on providing learning activities that encourage creativity, alongside critical evaluative skills - is that so very different from what we have always done? At various stages of my career I have worked with learners from ages 3 to 70 years old. The first few years and everything over about 25 seem very geared towards creation of ideas and co-construction of knowledge - something perhaps gets lost in the middle? How much of secondary or undergraduate work truly embraces these ideas? Sorry, lots of rhetorical questions here.

Of course, there are tensions: individual work versus possible plagiarism, for example. The tension that I am more interested in, though, is that between our self-perception as teachers, that view that our students must trust us to know the answers, with an emerging realisation that everyone is a beginner all the time (who said that? I am guessing Martin Weller?).

If we refer back to Perry’s (1970) ‘positions’ of intellectual development: absolutism, relativism, commitment, we might take the view that until learners (at any level) are at the stage of relativism, that is, that they are able to perceive a world in which the teacher does not know everything, they can never make the jump to becoming independent learners. I think that we need to consider how to move learners towards commitment, to guide them to be able to develop their own intellectual identities and accept that this may vary and change over time and with new information. And we also need to consider ourselves as learners in this domain.

Please help with any ideas on this!

This is a good read, in my opinion, Mitzmacher, J. (2010) Transparency as Pedagogy, A Floor but no ceiling? http://www.mjgds.org/mitzmacher/?p=135

podcast survey responses

results to survey here http://www.zoomerang.com/Shared/SharedResultsPasswordPage.aspx?ID=L24HZKVUBPMS

CPD - continuing, collaborative or both?

I recently had quite a long chat on Twitter with @ToughLoveForX (Michael Josefowic from Brooklyn) about CPD. It started with a look at what the 'C' stood for. In the UK, CPD is in fairly common usage for school teachers. In other education sectors, it may be referred to as just PD (professional development). So what does the 'C' stand for? Officially it s 'continuing' as it is about how teachers continue to develop professionally and personally throughout their career. It can be through school based activities, work shadowing, peer observation, coaching/mentoring, externally provided courses, study. I firmly believe that leading PD enables the leader to learn as much as those on the 'receiving end'.

At my school, we run an in-house course accredited by the College of Teachers (www.collegeofteachers.ac.uk) and I am hoping to introduce an accredited coaching scheme this coming academic year. Teachers can also go on external courses but the budget for these is limited. We also have some teachers and other staff who offer their expertise on a CPD directory (for example, drop in my lesson to see how I use multimedia, talk to the bursar about arranging trips) and have a VLE with resource sharing pages and space for staff to post their professional reflections. CPD leaders can use their experiences towards accreditation as well. Newly Qualified Teachers carry out action research which aids school policy development.

Next year, I would like to add podcasting and open up to other schools, around the world if possible, through holiday schools.Michael suggested the 'C' might stand for collaborative - this because he hadn't come across the acronym used in this way before. The more I think about it, the more I like it. How can I get more collaborative activities off the ground?

Michael pointed out some very important factors - teachers need to select what they want to do for CPD, there should be little financial constraint for individual teachers, and sharing of good practice between more experienced and less experienced staff benefits both. I heartily agree.

What do others think?