I have now received some more information that relates to my forthcoming ADE orientation session in March - released via iTunes U from the ADE Institute. The nice thing about iTunes U is that it connects pretty seamlessly to iBooks and of course to standard websites. So a couple of interesting looking iBooks have come my way, and also a website which I had never heard of, for the National Center (sic) on Universal Design for Learning.
The purpose of UDL is to design learner-centred materials that encompass Recognition Networks (the 'what' of learning), Strategic Networks (the 'how' of learning) and Affective Networks (the 'why' of learning). Coupled with this are multiple means of representation (aligned to Recognition Networks), Action and Expression (Strategic Networks) and Engagement (Affective Networks). This does sound like yet more edu-speak at first glance, but what I like is that the website links to a variety of research papers that explore the reasoning behind this methodology. Apple's take on this is to produce a variety of learner-centred materials that align with these three principles, and of course you can imagine how iBooks, iTunes U and a host of creative apps could plug into this. So interesting times lay ahead for me in terms of materials that I will be producing.
Saturday 23 February 2013
Wednesday 6 February 2013
Inquiry-based learning
I followed a link via twitter the other day about enquiry-based learning. It got me thinking about how I approach this with my own classes. The link quotes Chris Lehmann as he reflects on the successes of challenges with this approach in his Science Leadership Academy. Lehman identifies 3 key steps to success:
(1) Defining the meaning of enquiry-basd learning
(2) The changes that signal a shift towards that approach
(3) Potential drawbacks
(1) Lehmann takes an interesting look at the notion of personalized of project based or even collaborative learning sessions - and asks whether they actually lead the students into a truly inquiry-based state of learning? He talks about adaptive software that might lead students through topics at the own pace set by their own abilities - but that this software fails to ask students real-world questions about that material, or to contextualise is, or to communicate these concepts with others. Similarly he criticises collaborative projects that are bound by strict guidelines, in which the end-products are more or less the same across different student groups. Lehman is at pains to note that an inquiry-based approach pays little heed to HOW the learning happens, and is more concerned with encouraging students to learn even more - even if they and the teacher themselves don't know the answer.
This is the key - that often there is a blank page in which the teacher and the students do not know what will happen next. There also should be some sort of ability to publish content, through e-portfolios, blogs, twitter, good old-fashioned printed or handwritten reports, video - anything that suits the content.
Potential obstacles to an enquiry-based learning approach are that lesson are necessarily a lot harder to plan, that covering key content is sometimes harder to plot, and that assessing student progress is not a simple case of ticking boxes or marking homework. The very essence of assessment is called into question here - what is it that we are looking for when we assess students? What should we be looking for?
(1) Defining the meaning of enquiry-basd learning
(2) The changes that signal a shift towards that approach
(3) Potential drawbacks
(1) Lehmann takes an interesting look at the notion of personalized of project based or even collaborative learning sessions - and asks whether they actually lead the students into a truly inquiry-based state of learning? He talks about adaptive software that might lead students through topics at the own pace set by their own abilities - but that this software fails to ask students real-world questions about that material, or to contextualise is, or to communicate these concepts with others. Similarly he criticises collaborative projects that are bound by strict guidelines, in which the end-products are more or less the same across different student groups. Lehman is at pains to note that an inquiry-based approach pays little heed to HOW the learning happens, and is more concerned with encouraging students to learn even more - even if they and the teacher themselves don't know the answer.
This is the key - that often there is a blank page in which the teacher and the students do not know what will happen next. There also should be some sort of ability to publish content, through e-portfolios, blogs, twitter, good old-fashioned printed or handwritten reports, video - anything that suits the content.
Potential obstacles to an enquiry-based learning approach are that lesson are necessarily a lot harder to plan, that covering key content is sometimes harder to plot, and that assessing student progress is not a simple case of ticking boxes or marking homework. The very essence of assessment is called into question here - what is it that we are looking for when we assess students? What should we be looking for?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)