This is a follow-up to a post from yesterday that appears to have struck a chord. This post offers some additional explanation about the purpose and origins of the post and adds two more archetypes.
Explanation
As explained in this comment on the original post, the intent wasn’t to suggest that there is no place for project managers, leaders/senior executive, quality assurance folk, or academics. It was also not my intent to suggest that all project managers are blinkered etc.
The intent was to suggest that when taken to extreme – as in the archetypes – then this is a major factor in the death of learning and teaching in universities. I also suggest that, as we’re all human, most of us will have suffered archetypal moments. I would also suggest that increasingly the environment in many universities (especially those not in the upper echelon) is actively encouraging these archetypes.
Origins
A surprisingly large number of people asked whether I’d had a bad day yesterday, the obvious explanation for such a negative post. Actually it was a good day. The previous day, however, I had to fill out course evaluation forms for four courses I’d just completed as part of Graduate Diploma in Learning and Teaching. On reflection, most of the problems I experienced in those courses were not due to the academics being “bad”, but due to flaws in the learning and teaching system. Flaws most often introduced by (or because of) the archetypes. Flaws that the system would not pick up.
Some additional archetypes
A bit more thinking identifies a couple of more archetypes.
Catastrophic consultant
Most often brought in by the “strategic” leader, the catastrophic consultant is paid to bring his/her expertise around the planned flagship project. The catastrophic consultant often has no idea about higher education or the specific institution. Their ideas are based on experience at another organisation (e.g. “when I worked at a software firm all the Xs did Ys. That will work at a university?”) or a theoretical principle.
Quality learning and teaching is not their concern. Implementing the flagship project is.
Rampaging researcher
Comes in at least two sub-species
The ARC junkie. Teaching, what’s that? Journal papers, PhD students and ARC grants are the world for this archetype. Teaching is little more than an expense item on a grant application. The ultimate aim of the ARC junkie is to get a research only appointment. These are the folk that ask, “Why do you spend so much time on teaching?”
The Nutritionist (or a little out of date, The ALTC junkie). This is the L&T researcher. A list of L&T grants as long as your arm. On the editorial board of L&T journals and societies. If this is the “Web 2.0” year, then they are working on a “learning and Web 2.0” paper and helping the university develop a “learning and Web 2.0” policy. Are expert in all L&T theories and terminology. Firmly believe that they could improve all L&T at the university. If only the academics would all restrict their diets to bran, fruit and veges and water and would jog 5 miles each morning.
Based on my experience in Australian universities I would like to suggest four archetypes that are destroying the quality of learning in higher education. They are, in order of arrival at universities:
Idiot academics.
“Strategic” leadership.
Blinkered project managers.
Quality nazis.
This is not to suggest that all academics, leaders or project managers fit into the above archetypes. I do think, however, that the trend within the higher education system is to increase the proportion of these archetypes.
I would also argue that the last three are often seen as necessary because of the “idiot” academic. In fact, the “idiot” academic is the known enemy of the other three. Over time the other three archetypes see the “idiot” academic as the enemy and can end up treating all academics as idiots. This failure to differentiate is a major problem.
Idiot academic
This is the lady or gent who doesn’t respond to student queries. Is obviously ill-prepared for classes. Regularly returns assignments weeks after they should have been returned (if at all). Is still using the same content and assessment from 10+ years ago. e.g. are teaching a computer hardware course using Intel 8086 chips. It’s the type of academic who complains about over-work but is about to commence their 2nd hour of the morning in the staff room and hasn’t produced a journal paper for the last 5 years (if ever) and probably bemoans the quality of teaching of those who do research.
It’s the type of academic that should have been shown the door years ago if universities had anything approaching appropriate human resource management processes.
The quality of learning and teaching is not important for these folk, they wouldn’t know it if it bit them on the hind quarters.
Strategic leadership
10 or 15 years ago universities tended only to hire Vice-Chancellors as strategic leaders/saviours. i.e. they were given 5 year contracts, money and responsibility to “make things happen”. Which gave rise to the standard KPIs that went something like this
End Year 1 – have replace University senior executive with my mates.
End Year 2 – have implemented flagship projects (e.g. 5 term year, international campuses, partnerships with an employment firm or publisher).
End Year 3 – start spruiking how effective the flagship projects had been.
End Year 4 – start looking for a VC’s job at a better university.
End Year 5 – Move on before the waste product hits the cooling device.
This trend has slowly moved down the hierarchy to Deans of Faculties and most recently to Heads (now known as Deans) of Schools.
By definition these folk can’t grapple with or understand complex contextual factors. They have to get on with their flagship projects.
The quality of learning and teaching is not important for these folk, successful completion of flagship projects is.
Blinkered project managers
These folk are also usually on contracts, specifically to get a project done. Strategic leadership needs them because the leader can’t actually do the implementation. That would take time away from looking for the next job.
A blinkered project manager doesn’t care about anything except the successful completion of the project. In fact, a truly blinkered project manager doesn’t even care if the project was a success, as long as they can claim it was a success in public. And since the strategic leader who was “leading” the project also needs it to be a success, they are almost certainly going to have a success.
e.g. a LMS implementation where the LMS is unavailable for the first 2 weeks of go live because the database configuration couldn’t handle the load. This after a term of testing and numerous indications that it wasn’t working. Is still considered a great success.
The quality of learning and teaching is not important for these folk, successful completion of flagship projects is.
Quality nazis
The second cousin of the blinkered project manager. Teaching and learning in modern higher education is complex. There are problems (see idiot academics above) and mistakes. The obvious way to prevent these from happening is to have quality assurance processes, checklists, templates, forms, and systems. Since it is obvious if idiot academics spent hours more completing these checklists, templates, processes, forms, and systems to prove that they did what they didn’t do in the first place, the problems won’t happen.
The quality of learning and teaching is not important for these folk, successful ticking of the boxes is.
So assessment for term 1 of the Graduate Diploma in Learning and Teaching is complete, term 2 beckons. The following is some reflection on initial exploration of the courses, expectations and assessment.
Missing resources
As students we’re told that course profiles (equivalent of course syllabus) will be available today. Two weeks before the start of term. The are not. So my plans for this afternoon are hampered.
Come on CQU, you have to deliver what you promise. The course sites are available, why not the course profiles?
Would be interesting to know what the hold up is.
The courses
This term I have three somewhat traditional courses to complete
Assessment & Reporting in Secondary What is required and what is known about good assessment. Assessment appears to be designing to assessments. The first for grade 9 and the second for grade 11.
Assessment
Week 5 – 50%. 1500 word approx. Develop and reflect upon a one subject specific assessment instrument for a Year 8-10 subject.
Week 10 – 50%. 1500 word approx. Same again, but for year 11/12.
Learning and Pedagogy in Secondary. Apparently what we need to know about the act of teaching.
Assessment
Week 6 – 50%. Unit of work for a class in the Senior phase, different from the unit for Curriculum in Secondary. Include some reflection on “you as a teacher and a learner”
Week 11 – 50%. Three lesson plans for one teaching area and a critical deconstruction.
Curriculum in Secondary. Well obviously it’s important we know what the state wants us to teach and how to document it.
Assessment
Week 4 – 50%. 2000 word report. Has to be a hard copy. Topic chosen from a given list. Need to post a message to course discussion forum.
Week 9 – 50%. 2000 word report. Essentially a school work program.
The fourth course is actually a 6-week internship at a school. Don’t know much about this one yet.
Evidence of work-arounds
When I started the above, I didn’t think I would be able to gather much information about the assessment given the unavailability of the course profiles. You see assignment information is only supposed to be distributed via the course profiles as these are the documents that go through a “quality assurance” process.
The funny thing is that each of the three course Moodle sites contains complete descriptions of the assignments. In fact they tended to look like being the copies of the Word documents that would have went into developing the course profiles. This duplication of information is meant to be a bad thing in terms of consistency and management of information.
It has, however, meant that I have been able to start thinking about the term and what I’ll be doing. I’m pretty sure that the institutional quality nazis and “strategic” leadership would be upset with this duplication. I’m happy with it.
The following is part of an assignment for my study to become a teacher through CQU. It’s written as a letter/report/web page, an odd mix of genre.
The letter
Dear First Year Teacher,
Having traipsed through the foothills of early teacher education I have been tasked by the Principal to prepare a simple plan for you and your fellow beginning teachers around the topic of behaviour management. My first step is to redefine the problem and prepare a simple plan about class management. The point of this change is touched on below.
So, why should you read this plan? Well, if you are anything like the beginning teachers that participated in the 100 research studies reviewed by Veenman (1984), then class management and discipline are amongst your greatest concerns about teaching. Almost thirty years later Kratochwill (2011) found that this level of concern remained for new teachers. Stroiber (Stoiber, 1991) suggests that for many new teachers, effective class management is seen as the key to success. More broadly, Rose and Gallup (2006) report of surveys over a number of years where the general public list class management and student discipline amongst their major concerns about schools.
Beyond these concerns, is the impact class management has on students. A review of the literature by Wang, Haertel, and Walberg (1993) found that class management has the largest effect on student achievement from a list of 228 variables. Similarly, Sugai and Horner (2008) argue that the link between academic outcomes and behaviour is clear. Failed class management negatively impacts upon students. Gregory & Ripski (2008) draw on insights from a number of researchers to show that students who are suspended are more likely to have low achievement, receive future suspensions, experience dissatisfaction and alienation, drop out, become involved in the juvenile justice system, and later spend time in jail.
Given class management is so important, then how can a novice teacher provide assistance? For a definitive answer you will have to ask the Principal. My answer is that the following simple plan is not a case of you being provided with “the” simple answer to class management. This plan is simple only in that it has only five steps. Five steps designed to scaffold you in the act of developing your own answers to the challenge of class management.
This approach directly recognises the inherent complexity of class management. A complexity which means that there is no magical silver bullet, no universal panacea for class management. I cannot give you the solution. What works for me, in the classes I teach, at the school I teach at, on the days and times during which I teach, will almost certainly not be appropriate for you. In fact, it is unlikely that I can even give you a solution. Instead you need to develop a solution that recognises the inherent complexity and nature of you, your students, and your context. This approach resonates with the perspective seen in Stroiber (1991) that teaching is more than simply the implementation of effective procedures but is instead an on-going process of complex decision-making. This simple plan is intended to help you make a start and continue improving at this complex decision-making process.
Each of the five steps in the simple plan is described in more detail in the following sections. In summary, the five steps are:
Define class management.
How you define class management will directly influence what you see as being included in and excluded from class management and how you perform it.
Know yourself, your students and context.
The effectiveness of class management techniques depends entirely on who you are, who your students are, and the nature of the learning context.
Bring the learning.
Appropriate and effective learning and teaching are a central component of any class management plan. For good class management you need to create a good learning experience.
Adopt some techniques.
Based on the above, you need to select from the numerous sets of class management techniques those that work for you and your context.
Reflect and return to step X.
Throughout your teaching career you need to continuously reflect on what is happening in class, why is it happening, and what might help improve the experience. The outcomes of this reflection should then be used to revisit any of the previous steps and try again.
Define class management
Interest in class management (and related terms) is not recent. Figure 1 (click on the figure to see it larger) shows that rate of mention of related terms in a collection of books archived by Google Books. Class management begins being mentioned in the 1850s and is defined in a number of different ways. For example, Holbrook (1872, p. 133) offers this
In these lectures on School Management, as accomplished chiefly in Class Management, I have endeavored, by presenting the real aims and ends of school training, the formation and fixation of correct habits,
Figure 1. Incidence of class management and related terms from Ngrams
Since then many different perspectives on class management have been taken. Powell and Todd (2004, p. 2) identify perhaps the most common perception when they suggest that for many teachers (and the popular media) behaviour or class management is “solely concerned with establishing control over disruptive students”. McCaslin and Good (1998) offer a related perspective when they descibe how class management is typically seen as ensuring students respond quickly to the demands and goals of the teacher. Many authors, including Evertson and Weinstein (2006) identify the apparent contradiction between this “teacher as controller” perspective of class management and modern views of learning that encourage student independence, understanding, problem solving, and active participation.
As an alternative to the discipline or control definition of class management, Evertson and Weinstein (2006, p. 4) offer this definition
We define classroom management as the actions teachers take to create an environment that supports and facilitates both academic and social-emotional learning. In other words, classroom management has two distinct purposes: It not only seeks to establish and sustain an orderly environment so students can engage in meaningful academic learning, it also aims to enhance students’ social and moral growth
This is the origin of the word class management, rather than behaviour management. In addition to this change, I have changed “classroom” to “class” to remove from the teaching context the notion of a particular, physical room.
Beyond offering a more inclusive perspective of the task. Class management also suggests a move away from a focus on authoritarian or disciplinarian views of the task. This is particular important due to the potential, negative outcomes of a displinary focus. Sugai and Horner (2008) cite a number of authors to show that when punishment becomes the primary approach, negative side effects can include: increases in antisocial behaviour, more coercive interactions among adults and students, and a decrease in academic achievement and social behaviour. Evertson and Weinstein (2006, p. 4) argue that the question is not only whether or not you have achieved order within a class, but it also as important to consider how you achieved that order.
Beyond a simple scale between the disciplinary/control and environmental perspectives of class management, there are numerous different theoretical and conceptual perspectives on class management and related issues. Table 1 and Figure 2 provide overview of two different collections of perspectives. Whatever the model, perspective, or definition of class management you adopt, it is important to understand that your adopted view may well have limitations and that there are alternatives.
Gregory & Ripski (2008) describe how teachers vary in the philosophies and perspectives they have about how best to exercise authority and maintain classroom order. Being aware of examining different perspectives may provide useful insight. This is especially important for novice teachers who, as argued by Martin (2004) use their prior and somewhat limited knowledge as the initial scaffold for understanding what role they can play in class management and how they interpret the behaviour of students.
Table 1 is used by Powell and Tod (2004) to provide a summary of the variety of different theoretical perspectives that have been applied to understand and respond to off-task behaviour. It clearly shows how the perspective taken can reveal (or hide) different insights and possibilities.
Table 1. How off-task behaviour might be explained and addressed.
Frequent behaviour
Theory
Explanation examples
Action
Off-task
Behavioural
Child is getting more attention by being off-task
Reward on-task behaviour
Off-task
Cognitive
Child things he is unable to do the task
Encourage child to reappraise task, identify what parts of the task he can do, etc.
Off-task
Affective
Child fears failure.
Circle time to build self-esteem; offer increased adult or peer support
Off-task
Biological
Perhaps the child as ADHD?
Refer for medical assessment
Off-task
Developmental
Child is not ready to work independently
Allocate learning support assistant and set a more suitable learning challenge.
Adapted from “A systematic review of how theories explain learning behaviour in school contexts”, by S. Powell, J. Tod, 2004, Research Evidence in Education Library, p. 16.
Figure 2 (click on the figure to see a larger version) offers another perspective on the various models that have been used to view and understand behaviour. In presenting the diagram in Figure 2, Conway (2009, pp. 130-132) offers a brief description of each of the different models. Conway (2009) does describe the behavioural model – with its focus observing behaviour and then responding without examining underlying causes – as previously the most relevant approach to education. With the ecological and sociological taker a broader, more eclectic approach drawing on the other models.
Figure 2. Conceptual models of behaviour. Adapted from “Behaviour and support management”, by R. Conway, 2009, in Education for Inclusion and Diversity, A. Ashman, J. Elkins (eds), p. 131.
It’s complex
Another perspective of behaviour management, one that informs the ecological and sociological models from Figure 2, is that of complex adaptive systems (CAS). This perspective challenges the current dominant approaches to organisational theory and practice that assume a certain level of predictability and order (Snowden & Boone, 2007). Kim and Kaplan (2006, p. 37) describe complex systems as being
comprised of populations of interacting entities where the overall system behaviour is not predefined but rather emerges through the interactions of its entities.
Powell and Todd (2004, p. 17) echo this perspective when they describe learning behaviour as “complex, diverse, based on interactional processes and has multiple valid outcomes”. The observation by Schon (1984) that the rigid application of principles or theories is not sufficient since each teaching situation is unique mirrors the perspective provided by CAS. It seems likely that insights from CAS would prove useful in thinking about class management. The following video from uses a children’s birthday party to describe the differences between a CAS approach and two alternative approaches.
Know yourself, your students and context
Having clearly identified how you view class management, the next step is to generate insight into yourself, your students, and the context within which your class operates. It is this knowledge that will guide the subsequent decisions you make with this plan.
Yourself
The type of person you are, your abilities, knowledge, strengths, and weaknesses are form part of the toolbox you have to draw upon for class management. They also help define the boundaries within which you can operate. As a beginning teacher your specific knowledge of class management may be limited, hopefully a problem that this plan is helping to address. But you should be aware that there are some common consequences of this. Martin (2004) suggests that a novice teacher is more likely to adopt existing norms in an attempt to “fit in”. Fogarty, Wang, and Creek (Fogarty et al., 1983) suggest that beginning teachers are more sensitive to student behaviours that disrupt teacher plans, rather than being able to identify and respond to cues from the whole class.
While you may be limited in experience, what you do bring to the classroom are your existing strengths, weaknesses, and character. Being aware of these and the impact they have on class management is important. Instruments evaluating learning styles or personality types may be useful. Keeping in mind that these instruments have some weaknesses, but do retain some value. For example, Platsidou and Metallidou (2009, p. 324) identify validity and reliability problems with two learning style tests, but still suggest that they remain useful for encouraging self-development. Are you an introvert? An extrovert? An auditory or spatial learner? Your answers may betray a preference that influences both your learning and your approach to class management. Your answers should also encourage on-going self-development to both build on your strengths and improve your weaknesses.
Students
For many authors (Jones & Jones, 2001) the primary purpose of class management is being able to encourage deep learning by responding to the specific needs of both individual students and the class as a group. Marzano and Marzano (2003) found that the quality of the relationship between teacher and student is the keystone of class management. With high quality relationships reducing discipline problems by 31%. Laupa, Turiel, and Cowan (1999) argue that decisions made by adolescents to obey commands are dependent upon the quality of their relationship with the source of the command.
Being able to respond to student needs and developing high quality teacher-student relationships both require you getting to know both your students and how they interact as a group. Strategies for getting to know your students range from viewing academic transcripts, class observation, in class activities, and talking directly with students, their parents, friends, and other teachers. The better you know the students, the better you can respond to their needs and build effective teacher-student relationships.
Your context
As a formal learning site, all schools are likely to have an established set of assumptions, expectations and routines. This is particularly the case around issues of class management and discipline. As a teacher at a school you are expected to meet those expectations, so being aware of them is key. At this school these expectations are outlined in the staff manual available from the staff network drive. A few important points include:
There are four levels of inappropriate behaviour with specific examples at each level.
The first level remains the responsibility of the classroom teacher, the second involves the appropriate House or Academic Dean, the third the Assistant to the Principal – Students, and the last level the Principal or Deputy Principal.
Escalation to higher levels occurs due to either the severity of the misbehaviour or through repetition.
Where possible teachers are expected to deal with behavioural problems within their class and where possible help students make better behaviour choices and when possible determine the consequences of their actions.
Beyond these, the staff manual offers a range of recommendations for action and explicit specification of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
Bring the learning
For many people teachers, due to their role, are authority figures. Figures to be respected and taken note of. From this perspective students are expected to see teachers as legitimate authority figures and follow their directions. Gregory and Ripski (2008) cite numerous authors who suggest that this assumption no longer holds, if ever it did. They draw on insights from sociologists to argue that the legitimacy of authority is negotiated within the context of social relationships. From this perspective, whatever authority students cede to you will arise from their perceptions of you, the school, and the learning experiences you create for them.
Arising from this is the argument that an essential component of your class management plan must be to create effective and appropriate learning experiences for your students. The advice from this plan is that creating these exciting, effective, and appropriate learning experiences should perhaps by your prime aim. It is why the five steps of the plan could serve just as well as a simple plan for learning design or personal development of a teacher. Class management, learning design, and personal development are not seen as separate tasks.
Use some techniques
It is not uncommon to see discussions of class management focus on the sharing of techniques. An indicator of this tendency is the prevalence of lists of such techniques amongst the results of Google searches on topics such as “class management” and “behaviour management”. Rather than create another such list, the following is a list of lists (some of which are in turn lists of lists) of class management techniques. It will probably date fairly quickly, but that’s no problem. By this stage I’m sure your teacher education studies has taught you how to use Google as effectively as I can.
Top ten tips for classroom discipline and management
The following are worthy of special mention:
Classroom Management.
A website aimed at University staff, but which still provides value for staff at the primary and secondary level. Some explanation to accompany the techniques.
A website put together by a CQUni student that gives a good introduction to the topic of behaviour management.
The assumptions behind this simple plan agree with the observation by Powell and Tod (2004) that having a collection of techniques is a necessary part of a teacher’s toolkit, but it is not sufficient. Having identified and prepared a collection of techniques that match with your perspectives on class management and your teaching context is an important first step. But it is necessary to keep reflecting.
Reflect and return to step X
Some of the techniques you’ve adopted will not work, some will work at different times. It is important that you continue reflecting on what has happened and making changes to your perspectives of class management, yourself, your students, and your teaching context. The purpose of this step is to encourage you to do this. Reflect upon what happened as your tried your techniques and use that insight to revisit the earlier steps, change your mind, and try again. This plan argues that on-going reflection is an essential component of not only class management, but also your development as a teacher.
Gratch (1998) suggests that experienced teachers do not simply master teaching skills, but instead continue to learn about teaching through continued reflection and improvement of practice. Stoiber (1991) found that reflective practitioners were better able to analyse problems and had more positive attitudes to solving class management problems than a group taught prescriptive principles. On the other hand Marcos, Sanchez, and Tillema (2008) find numerous problems with reflection, including a significant distance between what is said and done and questions about exactly what reflection is, however, they also find that it is reasonable and desirable. Finding the time and energy to reflect while teaching can be difficult, but effective reflection and subsequent change in practice is essential.
Another essential component of this step is communication. Gratch (1998, p. 220) draws on numerous authors on teacher socialisation to describe teachers as working in isolation, rarely requesting assistance, unlikely to feel able to tell another teacher to do something different, and avoiding discussion of pedagogical practice. Given the complexity of class management, reflection in isolation is liable to narrow future possibilities. Instead, it is important to communicate with your peers. Talk with teachers, both within and outside your school, and talk with a range of people from outside the profession. Perhaps more importantly, listen to a broad array of perspectives and be prepared to use those perspectives to modify your perspective and practice.
In conclusion
The design of this simple plan in class management has helped me develop some personal insights and reinforce the indivisibility of good teaching and class management. It has reinforced for me the importance of an on-going process of reflective practice to change, and hopefully improve, my teaching. I hope you have gotten some value out of it.
Good luck with your career in teaching.
David.
References
Conway, R. (2009). Behaviour and support management. In A. Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.), Education for Inclusion and Diversity (3rd ed., pp. 123-166). Frenchs Forest, NSW Australia: Pearson Education Australia.
Evertson, C. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (2006). Handbook of classroom management: research, practice, and contemporary issues. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://books.google.com.au/books?id=WQGuQxJ5o4EC.
Fogarty, J. L., Wang, Margaret C, Creek, R., Taylor, P., Fogarty, J. L., Wang, Margaret C, et al. (1983). Descriptive Novice Study Teachers – Thoughts of Experienced Interactive and and Instructional. The Journal of Educational Research, 77(1), 22-32.
Gratch, a. (1998). Beginning Teacher and Mentor Relationships. Journal of Teacher Education, 49(3), 220-227. doi: 10.1177/0022487198049003008.
Gregory, A., & Ripski, M. B. (2008). Adolescent trust in teachers: Implications for behaviour in the high school classroom. School Psychology Review, 37(3), 337-353.
Holbrook, A. (1872). School management. A. S. Barnes. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=4JVDAAAAIAAJ.
Jones, V., & Jones, L. (2001). Comprehensive classroom management: Creating communities of support and solving problems. Library (Vol. 1968). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kim, R. M., & Kaplan, S. M. (2006). Interpreting socio-technical co-evolution: Applying complex adaptive systems to IS engagement. Information Tech, 19(1), 35-54.
Kratochwill, T. (2011). Classroom management. American Psychological Association. Retrieved June 8, 2011, from http://www.apa.org/education/k12/classroom-mgmt.aspx.
Laupa, M., Turiel, E., & Cowan, P. (1999). Obedience to authority in children and adults. In M. Killen & D. Hart (Eds.), Morality in everyday life: Developmental perspectives (pp. 131-165). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Marcos, J. J. M., S‡nchez, E., & Tillema, H. (2008). Teachers reflecting on their work: articulating what is said about what is done. Teachers and Teaching, 14(2), 95-114. doi: 10.1080/13540600801965887.
Martin, S. (2004). Finding balance: impact of classroom management conceptions on developing teacher practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(5), 405-422. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2004.04.002.
Marzano, R. J., & Marzano, J. S. (2003). The key to classroom management. Educational Leadership, 61(1), 6-13. Wadsworth Pub Co.
McCaslin, M., & Good, T. L. (1998). Moving beyond management as sheer compliance: Helping students to develop goal coordination strategies. Educational Horizons, 76(4), 169-176.
Platsidou, M., & Metallidou, P. (2009). Validity and Reliability Issues of Two Learning Style Inventories in a Greek Sample : Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory and Felder & Soloman’s Index of Learning Styles. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 324-335.
Powell, S., & Tod, J. (2004). A systematic review of how theories explain learning behaviour in school contexts. Research Evidence in Education Library, (August). London. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:A+systematic+review+of+how+theories+explain+learning+behaviour+in+school+contexts#0.
Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2006). The 38th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the publicʼs attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(1), 41. PDK International. Retrieved June 7, 2011, from http://www.kappanmagazine.org/content/88/1/41.short.
Schon, D. (1984). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Snowden, D., & Boone, M. (2007). A leaderʼs framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68-76.
Stoiber, K. C. (1991). The Effect of Technical and Reflective Preservice Instruction on Pedagogical Reasoning and Problem Solving. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(2), 131-139. doi: 10.1177/002248719104200206.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2008). What We Know and Need to Know about Preventing Problem Behavior in Schools. Exceptionality, 16(2), 67-77. doi: 10.1080/09362830801981138.
Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived Problems of Beginning Teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54(2), 143-178. doi: 10.3102/00346543054002143.
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a Knowledge Base for School Learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249-294. doi: 10.3102/00346543063003249.
The following describes the rationale behind the design of the first unit of work to be completed in a Year 11 Information and Processing Technology (IPT) course taught using the new senior Queensland IPT syllabus (QSA, 2010). The design of this unit is informed by the outcomes of a profile of potential students in this course. As such the design is informed by connectivism and attempts to embed students within authentic practice as an IPT professional. The contents of this document include the following sections:
Rationale;
Describes the rationale and purpose of the overall design approach for the 2-year senior IPT course.
Unit overview;
Describes the rationale and purpose of this particular unit of work, the first unit in the course.
Lessons overview; and
Provides an overview of the 12 lessons that make up this unit.
Example artefacts.
Describes evidence to support the author’s ability to implement the technology necessary to fulfil this learning design.
Rationale
As argued in the learner profile the design of this course and unit is based on the assumption that connectivism – and its resonances and overlaps with social constructivism and constuctionism – offer the most effective method for helping IPT students learn. As a result, the design of this course and unit is focused on creating a learning experience that engages the students within the community of users and developers around a popular open source tool. Throughout the 2 years of the course the students will use the open source tool and its community to engage in professional IPT practices and make the connections necessary to demonstrate learning.
Tool selection
The actual open source tool chosen is likely to change over the years and between schools. The criteria for tool selection will draw on the following criteria:
How large, active, diverse, and open are the user and developer communities around the tool?
The bigger and more diverse, open, and active the user and developer communities are the more likely students are to generate many and diverse connections within that community.
How often will the students be able to use the tool as part of their learning?
Allowing the students to become users of the tool – as well as developers – broadens their experience and knowledge of the tool. It helps them become more aware of possibilities for improvement. Where possible using the tool should become a key part of student learning within the course.
How regularly others within the school or local communities use the tool?
The local presence of people using the tool will provide the possibility of the students providing technical assistance to those users as part of the class.
How well does the tool matches the technical requirements of the course, the technical knowledge of the teacher and school technical support, and the technical infrastructure?
As part of the course, students will have to download, install and modify the chosen tool. For this to happen, such tasks should reasonably technically feasible within the school context and the topics of the IPT syllabus.
How good is the tools plug-in architecture?
A plug-in architecture allows additional services to be added to a tool without having to understand the complexity of an entire large system. It reduces the entry barrier for students.
At the present time, the two most obvious candidate tools appear to be the WordPress blog engine and the Moodle Learning Management System. For the purposes of this course, WordPress has been selected because it is to some extent a more focused system – blogging is a somewhat narrower task than e-learning – and has larger, more open, and more diverse developer and user communities.
The scenario
The entire course will be underpinned by a scenario in which the students take on the role of entry-level IPT professionals in an open source services company. The teacher takes on the role of lead developer in the same company. This particular company – to be named and branded by the students within this unit – aims to generate revenue through providing technical services to users of the chosen open source tool. Like other similar companies the students’ company must create a positive presence within the user and developer community around the tool. It is through the development of this community presence and fulfilling tasks for the company that the students gain experience with the topics of the course.
The company will – as with most technical services companies – employ a range of different information systems to manage its operations including: project management software, source code management software, developer blogs, company messaging network, and a company website. Not only will the students gain authentic experience using these systems as part of their study, these systems will also be used to structure the learning experience and as a part of assessment management.
Class routine and pedagogy
In keeping with the connectivist principles – especially the widespread availability of information about the chosen technical tool – there will be little to no direct instruction by the teacher. A typical lesson will revolve around the students being assigned a to do item within the company’s project management software. The to do item will typically: explain what the task is to complete; specify whether the task is to be completed alone or as part of a team; and, provide some initial pointers to information that may help in completing the task. Each to do is the next problem the students need to solve. It is their responsibility to identify how and what they need to solve each problem. The information within the to do is designed to act as scaffolding to provide students with some initial guidance in completing the to do. As the course progresses, the amount of this scaffolding will be reduced appropriately.
Solving each to do will involve application of the Design, Develop and Evaluate (DDE) cycle as explained in the learner profile and the IPT syllabus (QSA, 2010). In keeping with industry practice the students will be expected to update the project management software with the approach used to solve the problem, document any additional information, and to indicate the current status of the task. By late in the first year of the course it is expected that students will be starting to create to dos for themselves and other students as part of standard practice as an IPT professional.
As well as mirroring IPT industry practice, this information will also be used as part of student assessment and teaching. For example, the combination of project management software and individual student blogs will be used to aggregate and create the required student verification folio. In addition it is planned that the objectives and topics in the IPT syllabus will be used as tags within the project management software and student blogs to enable the construction of visual representations of how student tasks and artefacts relate to the syllabus. Such visualisations should help students, teachers, parents, and associated school and education partners understand what students have done and what is still required.
In keeping with industry practice the students will also establish company-based social bookmarking, blog, and micro-blogging (Twitter-like) networks. These are used to share information about problems, resources and tasks completed by students both within and outside the classroom. Some will also serve as a major component of how the trainee IPT professionals will make connections with existing developer and user communities. The individual student blogs and micro-blogging network will also be used to provide feedback to the students from the teacher.
As part of the scenario the students will design, implement, and maintain a company blog/web site fitting within industry expectations of such a site. This site will also serve as the public face of the course to parents, the school, and broader communities.
Assessment
The QSA IPT Syllabus (QSA, 2010) identifies three main assessment techniques for IPT:
Supervised written assessment;
In class, supervised tests with a variety of question types.
Extended responses assessment;
Written assignments, of various types, which require students to analyse, synthesise, and evaluate information and offer recommendations.
Product assessment;
Authentic tests of student ability to develop authentic products, such as software development.
The project management software, student blogs and other information systems used within the course will also be used for assessment purposes. For example, student reports and software development projects will be developed and submitted via the company’s project management and version control software. The combination of the project management software and student blogs will be aggregated to provide each student with the required student verification folio.
Unit overview
The 12 lessons within this unit constitute the first 12 lessons the students will complete as part of a Year 11 IPT course. Consequently, the focus of the unit is more on familiarising students with the course, its approach, the tools to be used over the course, and introduce them to some of the fundamental notions of the course. In particular, the Design-Development-Evaluate (DDE) cycle. A particular focus of this unit is engaging the students in some initial activities and experiences that they will revisit later in the course as they deepen their understanding of the principles. The last major aim of this unit is to firmly establish student ownership of the company and the scenario.
Topics and objectives
The unit will start the process of providing student with experience and exposure to the following objectives of the IPT syllabus (QSA, 2010, pp 2-4).
Knowledge of the terminology, applications and effects of ICTs, and of the syntax and rules of programming languages and query languages.
Understanding of applicable concepts, design processes, diagrammatical representations, and social and ethical issues.
Application of processes and algorithms for the solution of simple and familiar problems.
Define and explain information technology terminology, concepts, processes and principles.
Apply set processes to solve simple or familiar information technology problems.
Utilisation of appropriate design methods and principles
Interpret and analyse problems and situations requiring information technology use.
Use of logic and reason in a range of evaluation approaches to make judgments and recommendations.
Construction of documentation using the information literacy, software, or information systems development cycles.
Presentation of technical ideas, design concepts, solutions and evaluations.
Develop responsible attitudes towards the use of information technology
Appreciate the value of working independently and with others.
As the number of objectives covered suggest, coverage in this introductory unit aims at a broad, but shallow, coverage of the syllabus topics and objectives. It aims to give the students a broad taste for what they will experience in the course. This is the start of the spiral curriculum as identified in the learner profile. The specific objectives are drawn from across the four general objectives listed in the IPT syllabus.
Assessment
In terms of assessment, there will be no formal assessment as part of this 12 lesson unit. Many of the tasks completed during this unit, however, will either form:
the first step in a latter formal assessment task; or
e.g. The course will have a final extended response task that asks the student to re-read the artefact they completed for To do #3 (see Table 2 for a description) and describe how their conception of IPT and IPT professionals has changed over the two years of the course.
offer some initial experience with a process that will be used as part of a formal assessment task.
e.g. To dos 1, 5 and 11 require students to develop and evaluate processes to achieve some specific goal. This connects with a number of the IPT syllabus objectives and will form an important component of a number of remaining assessment items in the class.
There will, however, be quite significant observation of student participation and progress through the use of blogs, micro-blogging, collaboration, and in-class discussion and presentations. Knowledge gained through these observations will be used to provide guidance and additional help where required.
Software and services
Table 1 offers a summary of all the software and services that will be used during this unit. It is a fairly long list, however, as with the objectives discussed above this is due to the nature of the spiral curriculum. The aim of this unit is to provide a shallow level of experience with a broad selection of the software to be used throughout the course. The software in Table 1 covers most of the major planned software and services, with version control software being the main omission. Given the flexible nature of a connectivist approach it is likely that additional software will be used by some or all of the students over the two years. Standard software and services such as Office applications, web browsers, and general web sites and services (e.g. YouTube) will be used but are not included in Table 1.
Table 1. Services and software used in this unit
Service
URL
Purpose
Basecamp
http://basecamphq.com
Project management software used to allocate and track student tasks.
Wordpress.com
http://wordpress.com
Individual student blogs, mostly as reflective journals. Also for course blog.
Wordpress software
http://Wordpress.org
The open source code the students will install and eventually modify.
RSS reader
Various Used by students to track various class related feeds including: blogs of other students, Basecamp information, social bookmarking, and other information sources.
Edmodo
http://edmodo.com
Private micro-blogging site for education that includes support for assignment submission and polling.
Google docs
http://docs.googlecom
Collaborative authoring of documents.
Diigo
http://diigo.com
Social bookmarking
Skype
http://skype.com
Synchronous video/audio interview of IPT professionals
To dos
As described in the Class routine and pedagogy section above students will be allocated a number of to dos via the class project management software. Table 2 provides a summary of the thirteen to dos planned for this unit. Some additional information is provided in the Lessons overview below.
Table 2. Description of to do tasks for this unit.
To do
Description
1
Answer a basic question about how to complete a task within Basecamp. Requires understanding the interface and/or using the online help resources.
2
Create a personal blog on WordPress.com
3
Add a post to their blog describing current conceptions of IPT, what an IPT professional does, and what they need to know.
4
Set up an RSS reader and track feeds from the blogs of other students and the project management software.
5
As a pair (each member of the pair is identified within the to do) design a process to be used by the company to name and brand their company blog.
6
Join and commence using the class EdModo group.
7
Complete a reflective blog post using ??two quick questions??
8
Set up an account on Diigo. Use it and the class tag to share two links: an interesting example of using WordPress, and a company/individual providing technical services for WordPress.
9
Implement and reflect on the process to name and brand the company WordPress site.
10
As a pair, evaluate the WordPress installation process.
11
Students install the WordPress software on their computer/laptop.
12
In a group of 4, Identify each of the major components required to run WordPress and describe important relevant information.
Lessons overview
This unit consists of 12 lessons that are each described in the following sections.
Lesson 1 – Getting started
Aim
Briefly introduce students to the course and how it will work with a focus on authentic learning.
Start the students using Basecamp and their own WordPress blog.
Enable the students to use ad hoc or unplanned processes in their use of these systems as a basis for discussion and reflection later in the unit.
Process
Brief explanation of the course and its processes. (Most of this information will be given out electronically and discussesd as we go).
Hand out the students “new employee kit” which contains user account details for Basecamp and instructions to login.
To do #1: Students told to individually learn how to perform a different task with the software. Little or no direction is given.
After 15 minutes run a class discussion about what they found out and ask them how they went about the task. Did they use an explicit process or make it up as they went? What worked? What didn’t. Lead into discussion of the DDE, its connection with information literacy and general processes for solving problems. Explain a bit more about the aim of IPT.
Have the students close off their to do in Basecamp and explain more about the purpose of Basecamp.
Comment on the public nature of some of the work we’ll be doing in this course and offer some an initial simple rule – “If you don’t want your teacher, your parents, and the headmaster to read something, don’t post it”. Indicate more talk about this later.
To do #2: Have students work in pairs to each create their own WordPress.com blog. The to do will offer a brief description of pair programming and the various roles each pair will take on.
Close the lesson with a review and point them to their homework. Remind about the need to change the status of to dos as they complete the task.
To do #3: Write a blog post that describes their currently conceptions of IPT, what an IPT professional does, and what they will be learning (perhaps a KWL).
Lesson 2 – What is IPT and what do IPT professionals do?
Aims
Activate and discuss what students currently know about IPT.
Expose them to a variety of different views on IPT.
Get them working RSS readers and feeds.
Start thinking about their company.
Process
Use Basecamp’s management interface to identify who has and hasn’t completed their blog post.
To do #4: Students need to learn about RSS/Atom feeds, set up a news reader and subscribe to various course related feeds, including the blogs of other students.
Ask students to do a think/pair/share exercise about their blog posts, using the RSS reader to read each others blog posts.
Show students a range of different perspectives on IPT from existing professionals, either via online video or live Skype or similar. Aim to include some folk from WordPress or WordPress services companies.
Expand on the scenario and the nature of the company we’re creating and its aim to help people using WordPress. Explain that we now need to name and brand our company, but that this is a complex process that needs to involve all members of the class.
Introduce To do #5: Students are asked to work in pairs to design the process the class will use to name and brand our company. The best process developed by a pair will be selected and implemented by the class. Some prompts provided about the nature of the DDE cycle, the range of tasks to be considered, and other resources. Resources include the evaluation criteria for the process.
Lesson 3 – What is our name? (1 of 5)
Aims
Continue to expand the students’ appreciation of the need for process and planning.
Process
Illustrate the need for process and planning when involving groups and connect this to To do #5.
Students work in pairs on To do #5.
Lesson 4 – What is our name? (2 of 5)
Aims
Continue developing and applying insights into planning and process.
Commence some reflection.
Process
Start with some discussion about the use of blogs and Edmodo, based on what the students have or haven’t been doing. In particular, encourage constructive replies.
Students aim to complete their process design 10 minutes before the end of the lesson and be prepared to do a 5 minute presentation based on their process at the next lesson.
To do #7: Students write a blog post with their answers to a minute paper (Angelo & Cross, 1993) around the task of developing a process for naming and branding.
Lesson 5 – What is our name? (3 of 5)
Aims
Start students thinking about how to analyse and evaluate different options.
Give students some practice at presenting.
Process
The evaluation criteria for the naming and branding process are revisited.
Each group has 5 minutes to present their designed process.
Class discussion about presented processes in the context of the evaluation criteria.
An Edmodo poll is used to select the best process. Rewards given.
To do #8: Create a Diigo account and use the class tag to share two links. The first is for a company/person that is being paid to help people use WordPress. The second is for a WordPress site that is being used for something interesting. Links save via social bookmarking and tagged with class tag. No duplicates and points given for the biggest service company and the most interesting application of WordPress.
Lesson 6 – What is our name? (4 of 5)
Aims
Give students an experience at following a pre-defined process.
Develop the naming and branding of the company’s website.
Process
To do #9: The process chosen in the last lesson is implemented with the lead developer (teacher) as project manager who has developed appropriate to dos in Basecamp to schedule student sub-tasks.
After class is finished, an Edmodo poll is sent out to select the best links from to do #8.
Lesson 7 – What is our name? (5 of 5)
Aims
Give students an experience at following a pre-defined process.
Develop the naming and branding of the company’s website.
Process
Reward for the best links from to do #8.
To do #9: The task is completed.
In class reflection and de-brief of the process. Discussion of the tools we’ve been using.
Lesson 8 – Evaluating the installation of WordPress (1 of 2)
Aims
Apply experience in creating and evaluating processes to evaluate another process.
Start developing the knowledge necessary to install and modify WordPress.
Process
To do #10: Evaluation of WordPress installation process. Students pair up with each pair, where possible, containing an ‘expert’ (student greater computer experience, especially programming) and a ‘novice’. The task is to read up and critically evaluate the instructions for installing WordPress on their computers. The aim is to prepare them for actually doing the installation, identify knowledge limitations, identify the information sources for installation, and re-apply recent knowledge about processes and their evaluation. Students are to use the Information literacy cycle to answer specific questions that is to be documented on their blogs.
Lesson 9 – Evaluating the installation of WordPress (2 of 2)
Aim
Complete installation of WordPress.
Share information gathered about WordPress.
Reflect on difficulties in evaluating the process.
Process
Students have time to complete the evaluation and change the status of the to do.
Use a whole class SWOT analysis to synthesise the knowledge gained by the students. Also reflect on the process of evaluating the installation process.
To do #11: Students install WordPress onto their computers. Access necessary software from school servers. Will probably complete process at home. Required to use their blog as a development diary and record the installation. Encouraged to use Edmodo and other sources to share progress and ask for help. Students ask to document anything new that occurs that wasn’t identified during the evaluation process (to do #10).
Lesson 10 – Components of an Information System (1 of 3)
Aim
Deepen awareness of just how difficult process design and evaluation is.
Commence work on understanding the architecture and components of the WordPress software system.
Process
Class discussion about the installation process. What worked? What didn’t? What was new? Why? Identify any scope for improving the process? Reflect on any issues that hadn’t been identified during the process.
To do #12: Working as a team of four, identify, describe and categorise the major components (e.g. database engine, PHP interpreter, IDE, etc.) required to run and modify the WordPress software. Identify important locations and commands for using, managing and modifying a WordPress installation. Identify communities and online resources that related to each of the components.
Lesson 11 – Components of an information system (2 of 3)
Aim
Continue developing awareness of the different components that make up a working WordPress installation.
Process
Complete to do #12.
Use class discussion and a Google document to synthesise all the information about the components identified.
Lesson 12 – Reflection and tidy up
Aim
Reflect on what has been learned (or not) in this unit.
Identify what is working or not.
Identify what’s next.
Process
Break students up into groups and ask them to complete a KWL based on this unit. What do they know after completing the unit, what do they want to know, and what did they learn.
Have groups present the outcomes and use them to build a Google document with a class KWL.
Explain about the next planned unit – SQL and manipulating the WordPress database – and how it fits with the KWL. More briefly explain the initial plan for the subsequent units.
Any spare time is given over for students to customise their WordPress blogs and search out interesting WordPress plugins.
Example artefacts
Given that there is no chance to deliver this unit during EPL there has been no attempt to construct specific artefacts to demonstrate my ability to implement this approach. It is suggested, however, that my past work experience with these and related technologies provides sufficient evidence of it being plausible. Relevant experience includes:
The design and development of a University course on Systems Administration that aimed to make learning more authentic through students managing their own system, system emergencies, and maintaining system logs (Jones, 1993; 1995; 1996; 1999).
Work as the team leader of the Webfuse develoment team from 2000 through 2004, including use of a helpdesk system (Jones & Gregor, 2004; 2006).
The use of student blogs for reflection and the implementation of both a Webfuse extension (Jones & Luck, 2009) and a Moodle module (Jones, 2010) to aggregate and manage those blogs. The Moodle work included using a WordPress blog as a development diary and seeking to become a member of the Moodle developer community.
The design and implementation of a Web 2.0 course site that aggregated feeds from a range of external Web 2.0 applications, including social bookmarking, to automatically populate a course website (Jones, 2007).
While working as part of the Curriculum Design and Development Unit at CQU I instigated the use of Basecamp as project management software and worked with Google docs to collaboratively author documents.
References
Angelo, T., & Cross, K. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers (2nd ed., p. 448). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jones, D. (1993). Teaching systems administration. Melbourne.
Jones, D. (1995). Teaching systems administration II. Wollongong: SAGE-AU.
Jones, D. (1996). Solving Some Problems of University Education: A Case Study. In R. Debreceny & A. Ellis (Eds.), (pp. 243-252). Gold Coast, QLD: Southern Cross University Press.
Jones, D. (1999). Solving some problems with university education: Part II. Balina, Australia.
Jones, D., & Gregor, S. (2004). An information systems design theory for e-learning. In S. Elliot, M.-A. Williams, S. Williams, & C. Pollard (Eds.), . Hobart, Tasmania.
Jones, D., & Gregor, S. (2006). The formulation of an Information Systems Design Theory for E-Learning (pp. 356-373). Claremont, CA.
Jones, D., & Luck, J. (2009). Blog Aggregation Management: Reducing the Aggravation of Managing Student Blogging. AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/31530.
The following learner profile aims to provide a generic profile of Year 11 Queensland students enrolling in a senior course in Information and Processing Technology (IPT). While informed by observations of students gained during Embedded Professional Learning (EPL) it does not draw specifically on profiling activities of those students. Instead the profile draws on what is known about these students from the broader literature. The main reason for using a more general learner profile is that any limited profile of a single IPT class generated through activities organised by a student teacher is not likely to be as representative as drawing on an array of literature and supplementing this with classroom observation.
What does the learner already know?
As a senior course, students entering the course will have completed schooling up to Year 10. This may or may not have included formal study of Information Technology (IT). Where formal study of IT does occur in junior years of high school it is likely to focus on learning how to use various computer applications and general computer literacy. Some schools may offer courses in junior years that cover multi-media and programming/games development. It is also increasingly expected that the National Secondary School Computer Fund’s (DET, 2010) aim of a 1:1 computer to student ratio by 31 December 2011 will further impact students experience of computers in school-based learning. Not only should the students have ready access to computers and networks, they will increasingly have experience of using computers as part of school studies.
It is also expected that most students will have an increasing level of informal experience with the use of Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) in the form of either computers or mobile devices. Table 1 is a summary of how American teens (12-17) are using technology based on a survey of 800 teenagers in September 2009 by the Pew Research Centre (Lenhart, 2011). While based on usage by American teens these figures are broadly comparable to 2007 research on Australian children (ACMA, 2007) in showing that Internet, computer, and mobile phone usage have almost become ubiquitous.
Based on this increasing access, t has been suggested that people born since around 1980 – having been immersed in the use of ICTs for most of their lives – are somehow different in terms of skills and interests and that this has significant implications for education (Prensky, 2001; Tapscott, 1998). Bennet, Maton, and Kervin (2008, p. 776), however, suggest that these poorly evidenced claims have created a type of “moral panic” that has restricted critical and rational debate. Jones, Ramanau et al (2010, p. 772) through their examination of first year undergraduates at five English Universities found that
the generation is not homogenous in its use and appreciation of new technologies and that there are significant variations amongst students that lie within the Net generation age band
Table 1. ICT use reported by USA teenagers.
Statistic
Percentage
Online
93%
No computer
8%
Own a cell phone
75%
Online with cell phone
21%
Own a game console
80%
Own a portable gaming device
51%
On a social networking service
73%
Write a blog
14%
Hargittai (2010) found that there is significant variation in Internet know-how amongst young adults and that those from more privileged backgrounds use the Internet in a larger number of activities and in more informed ways. It appears that while potential IPT students may be more prepared to use IPT for learning, there remain questions about the depth and spread of that preparation.
It is also likely that most potential IPT students will have little nuanced insights into the impact of IPT on society and the practices and processes of an IPT professional. Computer science – a disciplinary cousin of IPT – has long tried to dissuade people of the narrow and misleading image of computer science as programming (Fletcher & Lu, 2009). Stereotyping of computing and the people who do computing continues to limit the diversity of people studying to become computing professionals (Klawe, Whitney, & Simard, 2009). For example, Cooper (2006, p. 331) argues existing gender stereotypes around computing and subsequent social influences increase the level of computer anxiety felt by girls. Kaarst-Brown and Guzman (2010), however, argue that this focus on the characteristics of gender-based, or other, groupings is insufficient to explain individual attraction to a Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) career. Instead, they argue that a new cultural perspective – one of which they provide – is necessary to generate renewed thinking about attracting students to IT studies (Kaarst-Brown & Guzman, 2010).
Where does the learner need or want to be?
The 2010 Queensland Senior Syllabus (QSA, 2010) for Information and Processing Technology (IPT) Syllabus describes IPT as
an intellectual discipline that involves a study of information systems, algorithms, software programming, human–computer interaction, and the social and ethical issues associated with the use of information technology.
The general objectives of the syllabus are divided into four dimensions: knowledge and application; analysis and synthesis; evaluation and communication; and, attitudes and values. Course content is drawn from 8 topic areas. Figure 1 is a representation of the structure of these topic areas. Two of the eight topics – intelligent systems and computer systems – provide optional material to supplement the six core topics. Two of the core topics – social and ethical issues, and human-computer interaction – are intended to be embedded within the other topic areas. Table 2 provides an overview of each topic area.
Figure 1. The topic structure for a senior IPT course. Adapted from “Information Processing and Technology (IPT): Senior Syllabus 2010” by QSA, 2010, p. 5.
Table 2. Summary of IPT topic areas * not a stand alone topic, should be embedded in other topics.
Topic
Description
Algorithms
Students are introduced to the notion of algorithm design, including at least one formal representational system.
Relational information systems
Examines formal models for describing the architecture of information systems, presents methods for developing these systems, and allows students to implement these to produce working information systems
Software programming
Study the development of software and provide students with some experience and skills in the design, development, and evaluation of computer programs to address practical problems or meet particular needs.
Structured query language
The use of SQL to manipulate data within a database.
Social and ethical issues *
Develop an appreciation and understanding of the impact of IPT on individuals and communities across the world. Including an appreciation of the social and ethical issues that arise from other sections.
Human-computer interaction *
Understanding the interaction between humans and technology to inform better design and improve user interfaces.
Intelligent systems
Introduces a formal model to describe the architecture of intelligent systems, methods for the development of these systems, and allows students to implement these.
Computer systems
How are computers and computer systems organised, designed, and implemented?
Fundamental to the presentation of the subject is the notion of the design-develop-evaluate (DDE) cycle Table 3 and one that should be embedded throughout IPT learning experiences. It is through the application of this cycle in a variety of learning experiences that an IPT class should aim to promote the teamwork, communication, and problem solving skills of students through the development of products (QSA, 2010). Learning experiences in an IPT class can include, but are not limited to: using information technology; solving problems in a variety of domains; extended writing including appropriate use of information sources, analysis and evaluation; presentation and communication of proposed solutions; and, collaboration within teams.
Table 3. The DDE cycle and other process cycles. Adapted from “Information Processing and Technology (IPT): Senior Syllabus 2010” by QSA, 2010, p. 20. (Click on table to see large version).
How does the learner best learn?
For some there is an expectation that the question of learning styles will in some way be included as a response to this question. Pashler, McDaniel, and Bjork (2008) argue that while there is evidence of learning preferences there is little research that suggests a positive connection between learning outcomes and differentiation of learning based on those preferences. There is, however, evidence that teaching and learning strategies that support the learning style preferences students can increase the motivation of students to learn (Feldgen & Clua, 2004). Platsidou and Metallidou (2009) offer another perspective, suggesting that learning styles inventories are more useful as a tool to encourage self-development of individual students, rather than as a mechanism to categorise and group students. The preceding mixed messages along with the difficulty involved in effectively pre-designing teaching and learning strategies based on assumptions around the mix of potential learning styles of students limit the attraction of this approach. It does appear more effective to make students aware of their learning preferences, the existence of other learning styles, adopt a course design that allows students to adopt and adapt their own learning strategies, and embed into that design approaches that encourage students to reflect and modify their strategies.
In addition, the research literature around diversity within the computer-science related disciplines (e.g. Cooper, 2006; Kaarst-Brown & Guzman, 2010; Klawe et al., 2009) identify a range of strategies intended to aid non-traditional learners studying within these disciplines. A small sample of these include:
Allow female students to use computers in same sex groups or alone (Cooper, 2006).
Work with female students on how the attribute success and failure (Cooper, 2006).
Incorporate opportunities to see non-traditional role models (Cooper, 2006).
Engage students actively in their conceptions of the IT culture and demonstrate alternatives (Kaarst-Brown and Guzman, 2010).
The book “How People Learn” (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000, p. 14-19) presents three key findings related to learning that have a good research based and implications for teaching. These three findings are:
Students come to the classroom with preconceptions about how the world works. If their initial understanding is not engaged, they may fail to grasp the new concepts and information that are taught, or they may learn them for purposes of a test but revert to their preconceptions outside the classroom.
To develop competence in an area of inquiry, students must: (a) have a deep foundation of factual knowledge, (b) understand facts and ideas in the context of a conceptual framework, and (c) organize knowledge in ways that facilitate retrieval and application.
A “metacognitive” approach to instruction can help students learn to take control of their own learning by defining learning goals and monitoring their progress in achieving them.
As mentioned in previous work for this course (Jones, 2011)
Too many IT courses rely on simple and narrow problems in order to focus on the principles. The readings on constructivism, connectivism, and Engagement Theory (Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1998) have reinforced the learning and motivational advantages of engaging students in authentic problems.
There is a body of literature around the teaching of computer science and related fields that reports on work seeking to build on these types of conclusions. For example, Maloney et al (2008) and McDougall and Boyle (2004) report on approaches where with appropriate scaffolding students are helped to learn via bricolage with much of the learning initiated by the student and help arising mostly from peers and mentors, rather than the teacher. The computer clubhouse model (Kafai, Peppler, & Chapman, 2009), an after-school learning environment, is based on four core principles: support learning through design experiences, help youth build on their own interests, cultivate an “emergent community”, and create and environment of respect and trust. Tagney et al (2010) build on the clubhouse model with a system where teams of students adopt a project-oriented approach working to meet set objectives with hard deadlines. The work of Tagney et al (2010), and some of the other work described here, is based on one or both of Vygotsky’s version of social constructivism and Papert’s constructionism (1993).
The position on learning being adopted in this work is based on connectivism (Downes, 2009). While there remains some discussion about the relationship beween connectivism, social constructivism, and connectionism (Kop & Hill, 2008), the position adopted here is pragmatic in terms of taking principles and practices from any source as long as it effectively connects with ideas of Downes’ (2007) basic theory of teaching and learning
to teach is to model and demonstrate, to learn is to practice and reflect
That is, the design here is based on the assumption that students learn best when they are actively engaged in the authentic practice of being an IPT professional and reflecting on that practice. This is especially so, if the students are able to observe and regularly interact with a range of people – including their teacher –actively modelling and demonstrating effective performance of those practices. The intent is to marry this with Bruner’s idea of a spiral curriculum that Harden and Stamper (1999, p. 141) describes as having the following features:
Topics are revisited multiple times.
There are increasing levels of difficulty.
New learning is related to previous learning.
The competence of the students increases.
In the context of an IPT course the adoption of a spiral curriculum not only generates the value associated with the idea, it can also be used to illustrate the important IPT concept of stepwise refinement.
As a consequence, it is thought that the best learning context for a Senior IPT course is one in which the students are working with a real information system. Especially when the chosen information system has a large, active, and open community of developers and users with which the students are able to actively engage. It is through this process that the students will aim to make a contribution to the community that is valued and used by others. It is through making this contribution that the students will best learn about the topic areas and objectives of the IPT course.
References
ACMA. (2007). Media and Communications in Australian Families 2007. Communications. Canberra, ACT, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib101058/maciaf2007_overview.pdf.
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The Òdigital nativesÓ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x.
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C. National Academy Press.
Cooper, J. (2006). The digital divide: The special case of gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(5), 320–334. Wiley Online Library. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00185.x.
DET. (2010). National Secondary School Computer Fund Queensland State Schools Guidelines Contents. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/smartclassrooms/pdf/nsscf-guidelines.pdf.
Downes, S. (2007). What connectivism is. Retrieved June 5, 2011, from http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-connectivism-is.html.
Downes, S. (2009). Learning networks and connective knowledge. In H. H. Yang & S. C.-Y. Yuen (Eds.), Collective intelligence and elearning 2.0: Implications of web-based communities and networking (pp. 1-22). IGI Global.
Feldgen, M., & Clua, O. (2004). Games as a motivation for freshman students to learn programming. Frontiers in Education (Vol. 3, p. S1H/11-S1H/16). Savannah, GA: IEEE.
Fletcher, G. H. L., & Lu, J. J. (2009). Human computing skills: Rethinking the K-12 experience. Communications of the ACM, 52(2), 23. doi: 10.1145/1461928.1461938.
Harden, R., & Stamper, N. (1999). What Is a Spiral Curriculum?. Medical Teacher, 21(2), 141–43. doi: 10.1080/01421599979752.
Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet Skills and Uses among Members of the ÒNet Generation.Ó Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92-113. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00317.x.
Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or Digital Natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education, 54(3), 722-732. Elsevier Ltd. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.022.
Jones, D. (2011). Reflection and conclusions: Learning brief. Retrieved March 18, 2011, from https://djon.es/blog/2011/03/15/reflection-and-conclusions-learning-brief/.
Kaarst-Brown, M. L., & Guzman, I. R. (2010). A cultural perspective on individual choices of STEM education and subsequent occupations. Proceedings of the 2010 Special Interest Group on Management Information Systemʼs 48th annual conference on Computer personnel research on Computer personnel research – SIGMIS-CPR Õ10 (p. 55). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/1796900.1796926.
Kafai, Yasmin, Peppler, K., & Chapman, R. (2009). The Computer Clubhouse: Constructionism and creativity in youth communities (p. 162). New York: Teachers College Press.
Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement Theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning. Educational Technology, 38(5), 20-23.
Klawe, M., Whitney, T., & Simard, C. (2009). Women in computing—take 2. Communications of the ACM, 52(2), 68–76. ACM. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1461947.
Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3). Retrieved February 28, 2011, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/523/1103%22.
Lenhart, A. (2011). ÒHow do [they] even do that?Ó Myths and facts about the impact of technology on the lives of American teens. Retrieved May 30, 2011, from http://pewinternet.org/Presentations/2011/Apr/From-Texting-to-Twitter.aspx.
Maloney, J. H., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by choice: urban youth learning programming with scratch. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 367–371. ACM. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1352322.1352260.
McDougall, A., & Boyle, M. (2004). Student Strategies for Learning Computer Programming: Implications for Pedagogy in Informatics. Education and Information Technologies, 9(2), 109–116. Springer. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from http://www.springerlink.com/index/H221286T0727KQ50.pdf.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. Wiley-Blackwell. Retrieved May 29, 2011, from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/pspi/2008/00000009/00000003/art00002.
Platsidou, M., & Metallidou, P. (2009). Validity and Reliability Issues of Two Learning Style Inventories in a Greek Sample : Kolb Õ s Learning Style Inventory and Felder & Soloman Õ s Index of Learning Styles. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 324-335.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
QSA. (2010). Information Processing and Technology (IPT): Senior Syllabus 2010. Assessment. Spring Hill, QLD, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/senior/snr_ipt_10_syll.pdf.
Tangney, B., Oldham, E., Conneely, C., Barrett, S., & Lawlor, J. (2010). Pedagogy and Processes for a Computer Programming Outreach Workshop—The Bridge to College Model. Education, IEEE Transactions on, 53(1), 53–60. IEEE. doi: 10.1109/TE.2009.2023210.
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the Net Generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
The last post was the first step in designing a unit of work for a senior IPT (Information and Processing Technology) course as part of an assignment for a course titled ICTs for Learning Design. The intent is to show an ability to integrate e-learning into learning design in effective ways. The first part of the assignment requires a profile of the learners. The following is my first attempt at such a profile. I’m very interested to hear comments from those folk who are currently teaching IPT. Am I on the right track? What have I missed?
Learning Management Questions: 1, 2, and 3
The course and program I am studying is based on the concept of “learning management” which has a technique called the Learning Design Process which is based on 8 Learning Management Questions that
that organises ‘information’ required of learning managers for the successful sequencing, pacing and importantly delivery of curriculum material for individual learners.
The notion of the teacher having to sequence, pace and deliver curriculum material is of itself a fairly specific and somewhat limiting perspective on teaching. A perspective that I’m not sure fits real well with the approach I’m thinking of for my design. I also have a problem with the teleological nature of the design
This process enables learning managers to focus their work on learner progress and future learning objectives; to assemble the required ‘ingredients’ for a successful learning program (design) and to then implement the plan using appropriate pedagogical strategies.
But let’s leave the questioning aside and tick the boxes.
The first three LM questions have to do with profiling the student, they are
What does the learner already know?
Where does the learner need/want to be?
How does the learner best learn?
These are the questions I’m going to seek to answer in the following. The assignment suggests/requires that we do this profiling within the context of our existing school. I’m going to argue against that because what I’m designing is not going to be taught to these students, mainly because it is quite a radical departure from existing practice. But also because there is a tendency for IPT courses to be slightly idiosyncratic in their choice of tools and approaches. For example, my IPT mentor teacher has experience and knowledge with Visual Basic and Access. So his IPT curriculum is based around the use of those tools to achieve appropriate learning outcomes. I have little to no experience with those tools.
What does the learner already know?
As a senior course, students entering the course will have completed schooling up to Year 10. This may or may not have included formal study of Information Technology (IT). It is likely, however, that enrolling students will have had some formal experience of computing in the lower grades. It is also increasingly expected that enrolling students will have access to a computer through the National Secondary School Computer Fund’s (DET, 2010) aim of a 1:1 computer to student ratio by 31 December 2011. This access to computers should increase students’ formal experience of computing to support learning.
It is also expected that a majority of students will have some level of informal experience with the use of Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) in the form of either computers or mobile devices. The following table summarises some data from a talk on American teens (12-17) from the Pew Research Centre. The talk uses data from a survey of 800 teenagers from September 2009. Based on observations in local schools, these numbers seem, if anything, a bit low in the Australian context.
Statistics Percentage
Online
93%
No computer
8%
Own a cell phone
75%
Online with cell phone
21%
Own a game console
80%
Own a portable gaming device
51%
On a social networking service
73%
Blog
14%
It is widely suggested that people born since around 1980 – having been immersed in the use of ICTs for most of their lives – are somehow different in terms of skills and interests and that this has significant implications for education. Bennet et al (2008, p. 776) suggest that these poorly evidenced claims have created a a “moral panic” that has restricted critical and rational debate. Jones, Ramanau et al (2010, p 722) through their examination of first year undergraduates at five English Universities that
the generation is not homogenous in its use and appreciation of new technologies and that there are significant variations amongst students that lie within the Net generation age band
Hargittai (2010) found that there is significant variation in Internet know-how amongst young adults and that those from more privileged backgrounds use the Internet in a larger number of activities and in more informed ways.
The majority will not be familiar with the requirements and practices of a computing professional. In particular, the constraints and interesting effects that having real users can generate. In particular, the gulf that can be created between an IT team and its users. Students, like most people, tend to assume that IT is either programming or desktop support. Computer science – a more theoretical ancestor of IT – has long tried to dissuade people of the narrow and misleading image of computer science as programming (Fletcher and Lu, 2009).
It is also likely that the students enrolling in IPT will not be representative of the full diversity of senior students. Bias and stereotyping of computing and the people who do computing continues to limit the diversity of people actively studying and becoming computing professionals (Klawe, Whitney and Simard, 2009). Some have concluded that men have a relative advantage over women when learning about or using computers (Cooper, 2006). Kaarst-Brown and Guzman (2010), however, argue that this focus on the characteristics of gender-based, or other, groupings is insufficient to explain individual attraction to a Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) career. Instead, they argue that a new cultural perspective – one of which they provide – is necessary to generate renewed thinking about attracting students to IT studies (Kaarst-Brown and Guzman, 2010, p 63).
Where does the learner need/want to be?
This is where I’ll need to draw on some of the information from the last post which briefly examined the IPT syllabus for Queensland schools.
In terms of a hidden curriculum some of the following are potential candidates
An understanding of how creative working with IT can be.
A sense that they can produce something useful and make a contribution beyond school and family.
How does the learner best learn?
For some there is an expectation that the question of learning styles will in some way be included as a response to this question. Pashler, McDaniel et al (2008) argue that while there is evidence of learning preferences there is little research that suggests a positive connection between learning outcomes and differentiation of learning based on those preferences. There is, however, evidence that teaching and learning strategies that support the learning style preferences students can increase the motivation of students to learn (Feldgen and Clue, 2004). Platsidou and Metallidou (2009) offer another perspective, suggesting that learning styles inventories are more useful as a tool to encourage self-development of individual students, rather than as a mechanism to categorise and group students. The preceding mixed messages along with the difficulty involved in effectively pre-designing teaching and learning strategies based on assumptions around the mix of potential learning styles of students limit the attraction of this approach. It does appear more effective to make students aware of their learning preferences, the existence of other learning styles, adopt a course design that allows students to adopt and adapt their own learning strategies, and embed into that design approaches that encourage students to reflect and modify their strategies.
The book “How People Learn” (Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, 2000, pp 14-19) presents three key findings related to learning that have a good research based and implications for teaching. These three findings are:
Students come to the classroom with preconceptions about how the world works. If their initial understanding is not engaged, they may fail to grasp the new concepts and information that are taught, or they may learn them for purposes of a test but revert to their preconceptions outside the classroom.
To develop competence in an area of inquiry, students must: (a) have a deep foundation of factual knowledge, (b) understand facts and ideas in the context of a conceptual framework, and (c) organize knowledge in ways that facilitate retrieval and application.
A “metacognitive” approach to instruction can help students learn to take control of their own learning by defining learning goals and monitoring their progress in achieving them.
Too many IT courses rely on simple and narrow problems in order to focus on the principles. The readings on constructivism, connectivism, and Engagement Theory (Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1998) have reinforced the learning and motivational advantages of engaging students in authentic problems.
Within the literature on teaching IT, computer science, and related fields there has been a range of work that has arisen from this type of observation. Maloney et al (2008) and McDougall and Boyle (2004) report on approaches where with appropriate scaffolding students are helped to learn via bricolage with much of the learning initiated by the student and help arising mostly from peers and mentors, rather than the teacher. The computer clubhouse model (Kafai et al, 2009), an after-school learning environment, is based on four core principles: support learning through design experiences, help youth build on their own interests, cultivate an “emergent community”, and create and environment of respect and trust. Tagney et al (2010) build and extend on the clubhouse model with a team-based system with teams adopting a project-oriented approach working to meet set objectives with hard deadlines. The work of Tagney et al (2010), and some of the other work described here, is based on one or both of Vygotsky’s version of social constructivism and Papert’s constructionism (1993). I see some significant value from a connectivist perspective of encouraging students to interact with communities outside the classroom, especially existing communities associated with real life systems.
The research literature on encouraging greater diversity amongst IT related disciplines (e.g. Kaarst-Brown and Guzman, 2010; Cooper, 2006; Klawe et al, 2009) suggest a range of strategies that can aid non-traditional learners. A small sample of these include:
Allow female students to use computers in same sex groups or alone (Cooper, 2006).
Work with female students on how the attribute success and failure (Cooper, 2006).
Incorporate opportunities to see non-traditional role models (Cooper, 2006).
Engage students actively in their conceptions of the IT culture and demonstrate alternatives (Kaarst-Brown and Guzman, 2010).
Some conclusions from the profile
The following is a short list of arbitrary thoughts that arose while writing the above.
The class design should aim to dissuade students that IT is programming or desktop support. Don’t start with programming. Though Fletcher and Lu (2009) disagree, so more thought here. Give students experience at the full range of computing roles: from level 1 helpdesk support through to management.
Computational thinking is the new term to describe what some see as the predecessor to programming. This may also cover some of what the IT syllabus talks about. From Fletcher and Lu (2009)
The redesign and implementation of K–12 curricula to provide adequate exposure to and practice in CT should, of course, be coupled with ongoing efforts to rethink the ways in which we transition students into programming and higher-level CS.
References
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The Òdigital nativesÓ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x.
Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Cooper, J. (2006). The digital divide: The special case of gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(5), 320–334. Wiley Online Library. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00185.x.
DET. (2010). National Secondary School Computer Fund Queensland State Schools Guidelines Contents. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/smartclassrooms/pdf/nsscf-guidelines.pdf.
Feldgen, M., & Clua, O. (2004). Games as a motivation for freshman students to learn programming. Frontiers in Education (Vol. 3, p. S1H/11-S1H/16). Savannah, GA: IEEE.
Fletcher, G. H. L., & Lu, J. J. (2009). Human computing skills: Rethinking the K-12 experience. Communications of the ACM, 52(2), 23. doi: 10.1145/1461928.1461938.
Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet Skills and Uses among Members of the ÒNet Generation.Ó Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92-113. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00317.x.
Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or Digital Natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education, 54(3), 722-732. Elsevier Ltd. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.022.
Kaarst-Brown, M. L., & Guzman, I. R. (2010). A cultural perspective on individual choices of STEM education and subsequent occupations. Proceedings of the 2010 Special Interest Group on Management Information Systemʼs 48th annual conference on Computer personnel research on Computer personnel research – SIGMIS-CPR Õ10 (p. 55). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/1796900.1796926.
Kafai, Yasmin, Peppler, K., & Chapman, R. (2009). The Computer Clubhouse: Constructionism and creativity in youth communities (p. 162). New York: Teachers College Press.
Klawe, M., Whitney, T., & Simard, C. (2009). Women in computing—take 2. Communications of the ACM, 52(2), 68–76. ACM. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1461947.
Maloney, J. H., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by choice: urban youth learning programming with scratch. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 367–371. ACM. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1352322.1352260.
McDougall, A., & Boyle, M. (2004). Student Strategies for Learning Computer Programming: Implications for Pedagogy in Informatics. Education and Information Technologies, 9(2), 109–116. Springer. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from http://www.springerlink.com/index/H221286T0727KQ50.pdf.
Papert, S. (1993). The Childrenʼs Machine. New York: Basic Books.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. Wiley-Blackwell. Retrieved May 29, 2011, from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/pspi/2008/00000009/00000003/art00002.
Platsidou, M., & Metallidou, P. (2009). Validity and Reliability Issues of Two Learning Style Inventories in a Greek Sample : Kolb Õ s Learning Style Inventory and Felder & Soloman Õ s Index of Learning Styles. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 324-335.
Tangney, B., Oldham, E., Conneely, C., Barrett, S., & Lawlor, J. (2010). Pedagogy and Processes for a Computer Programming Outreach Workshop—The Bridge to College Model. Education, IEEE Transactions on, 53(1), 53–60. IEEE. doi: 10.1109/TE.2009.2023210.
This week is assignment week. One of the assignments I need to complete is for the course ICTs for Learning Design. This final assignment requires us to design a unit of work (a sequence of learning experiences) for a particular subject that makes effective use of eLearning. The following is the first step in this process.
The process started over a fortnight ago with a post asking where all the innovative IPT (Information Processing and Technology) courses were? Many thanks to @meganrodda for sharing her games design program.
The intent here is to look at the new (2010) Queensland Syllabus for IPT courses and use a unit of work from there as the basis for the assignment. The intent is to try to come up with something right out of left field. Something that avoids all of the common approaches and comes at the question of IPT from a different angle. In the context of this course, one that hits some of the theoretical buttons so desired in the e-learning course. After all, this just has to be a design. I don’t have to implement it, yet.
The idea that is in the back of my head is one I floated briefly in this post. i.e. structure an entire IPT course around a particular open source tool like Moodle or WordPress. Something that has a large community and a plugin architecture that allows fairly simple modification. The students would have to engage with the community, become familiar with the tool, start answering questions/writing documentation for the tool, creating instances of the tool (e.g. managing a Moodle instance for some folk), and finally modifying the tool in someway.
Some detail on IPT
The following are a few choice excerpts from the main IPT syllabus document that I’m hoping might inform my design.
What is it?
Information Processing and Technology is a course of study that provides students with
knowledge, skills, processes and understanding of information technology. It emphasises problem identification and solution rather than the use of specific applications, and is an intellectual discipline that involves a study of information systems, algorithms, software programming, human–computer interaction, and the social and ethical issues associated with the use of information technology.
Some important components
This course should prove especially relevant to students by helping them to engage with the rapid rate of change associated with information technology and to appreciate its advantages and disadvantages….It is therefore important that an approach be employed that enables students to develop higher order processes of analysis, synthesis and evaluation, and that will best equip them to communicate their understanding of the conceptual base integral to information technology.
General objectives
There are four general objectives that are required to be taught. The following table summarises the four.
Objective
Encompasses
Outcome
Knowledge and application declarative knowledge and procedural application
knowledge of the terminology, applications and effects of ICTs, and of the syntax and rules of programming languages and query languages
understanding of applicable concepts, design processes, diagrammatical representations, and social and ethical issues
application of processes and algorithms for the solution of simple and familiar problems.
define and explain information technology terminology, concepts, processes and principles
apply set processes to solve simple or familiar information technology problems
Analysis and synthesis
deconstruction of a setting to analyse a problem or situation to determine their salient features and their suitability for solution using information technology
utilisation of appropriate design methods and principles
synthesis of solutions to problems or situations that are unfamiliar, significant in scope or complex in nature.
interpret and analyse problems and situations requiring information technology use
design and develop solutions to unrehearsed or complex information technology problems.
Evaluation and communication
use of logic and reason in a range of evaluation approaches to make judgments and recommendations
application of metrics and protocols to test solutions, and of prescribed criteria to draw conclusions and make recommendations
evaluation of processes for identified products and solutions
construction of documentation using the information literacy, software or information systems development cycles
presentation of technical ideas, design concepts, solutions and evaluations.
test processes and solutions, apply prescribed criteria, reasoning or evidence to draw conclusions and make recommendations
construct documentation and present information to convey meaning using communication conventions.
Attitudes and values
It includes envisioning possible, probable and preferred futures, and taking responsibility for actions and decisions while promoting ethical practices. A course in Information Processing and Technology promotes problem solving skills, teamwork, and communication through the development of products, investigation and the completion of assessment instruments.
appreciate the complex interactions between information technology and individuals, and information technology and society
recognise and value their potential to become productive participants in the development of information technology
develop responsible attitudes towards the use of information technology
appreciate the value of working independently and with others.
Course structure
55 hours per semester, over 4 semesters giving 220 hours.
165-180 hours comes from 6 core topics
Algorithms. Use of a formal representation system to understand the basics of algorithms, development, sequence, selection etc. Aside: I’m not such a big fan of formal representation systems (e.g. Nassi-Schneidermann etc.)
Relational information systems Arghh, they mention DIKW as part of the core. etc. etc. Interesting: “analyse an existing information system” is one of the listed outcomes. As is “create, document and evaluate a working information system”.
Software Programming 3GL programming, debugging, testing etc.
Structured query language I find it interesting that this is a core topic separate from relational information systems. But basically it’s SQL.
Social and ethical issues
Human-computer interaction
There are two topics for additional material (as well as extension material for some of the core topics)
Intelligent systems. AI, knowledge-based systems etc. Gees, Prolog and LISP. There is a bit of deja vu from my undergrad CS days in the late 80s here.
Computer systems. Everything from processors and von Neuman architecture through to systems administration.
Where appropriate, topics should be investigated through the design–develop–evaluate cycle
A school’s implementation of the syllabus has to be described in a work program that is approved. There are one and two example work programs available.
Learning experience
The design-develop-evaluate (DDE) cycle is emphasised. Also, learning experiences should:
provide opportunities for students to achieve the general objectives of the syllabus
suit the particular needs, abilities, learning styles and interests of the students
provide opportunities for students to think and work individually and with others in a cooperative way
be interesting and challenging
The is explicit mention made of progressing from simple to more complex experiences. I find this somewhat contradictory to the ideas behind constructivism etc. Wouldn’t exposing students to complex, authentic experiences from the start be okay, as long as there was fairly significant scaffolding at the start?
And now a list commences of experiences students should have
Using information technology.
Solving problems.
Extended writing.
Presentation.
Collaboration.
Assessment
Some example types are given, with significant detail, including:
Supervised written assessment
Extended response.
Product assessment.
Each student needs to have a verification folio.
Some initial principles
Some misc. principles that I think might be useful in guiding the plan.
A real system for a real audience
One of the example work plans has the students developing a dynamic web application to keep a “travel blog”. This type of assessment is one of the problems I have with IPT (though I remain uncertain about how realistic addressing this problem is within the practical constraints of actually teaching it).
Here are the problems I have with this approach
You would never do it this way. Very, very few people would ever write their own travel blog software. They’d get an account on WordPress or some other blogging service. I’m quite sure if you looked through the content/criteria for IPT you would find something suggesting that writing your own travel blog software is inefficient and inappropriate.
Your friends and family know this. If a student runs to their friends to show off their travel blog, the friends will ask “Why don’t you just use WordPress?”.
There are no users of the tool. Having people using your tool is important.
There is no community of developers. The student is often relying on the teacher for advice. There are no other experts around to help.
Creation is the hardest task
Too often algorithm design or programming courses start with students creating algorithms and programs. I’ve never been a fan of this approach. I initially learned how to program by typing in programs from computer magazines, analysing those programs and stealing ideas. i.e I examined working programs first.
And that was in the day when it was quite common to create a brand new, stand alone program. Increasingly over recent years programmers seem more likely to be adding plugins or mods to an existing system. As a result, being able to analyse and become familiar with an existing system is an important skill.
Allowing space for the advanced students
On average, most senior high school students are going to be reasonable computer literate. There will, however, always be the hand full that are streets ahead. I’d like to see a design for IPT that provides a space for these students to learn and experience new things.
Increasing transparency and collaboration
What passes for collaboration in the IPT classes I’ve observed is fairly ad hoc and usually limited to friends helping friends or the smart kid being asked for advice. I’m interested in embedding collaboration more tightly into the class. In part through some of the practices of methodologies like eXtreme Programming (e.g pair programming, story board, standup meetings etc.).
Am also interested in using project management software like Basecamp to manage the workload and tasks. Have students project manage their learning, both individually and as a group. Make their progress transparent.
No or minimal teaching
The above ties into my desire to minimise or totally remove the need for me to be “the teacher”. I guess the ultimate aim would be for my role to be the “lead developer”. The guy with a bit more experience that guides the team members through there tasks with the aim of them not needing any help. I don’t want to be in the situation of having to give “lectures” on SQL, ORM or language syntax. That’s a task to be taken on by the resources that are out on the web. Some of which might be identified by me, but much of it would hopefully be identified by the students.
Realistic?
As mentioned above, I don’t imagine implementing something like this will be easy within the practical requirements and constraints of a school setting. Especially for a novice high school teacher. But you have to dream big. Next to connect this to the students.
