Final Reflections

Our last lesson. A bit nostalgic about it, frankly.

Our SCLP went through many transformations in a span of a month. These are the changes I remember.

Scenario: Terrorism --> Gang Fight in a Local School

The change in scenario was suggested by Dr Tan. A gang fight in a school is more relevant and authentic for students. Terrorism, while a pressing concern in the real-world, is less of an immediate concern to Secondary School students. Perhaps using terrorism as a topic would be more appropriate for Junior College students.

Method: Every student does all four sources individually --> Each student does one source, get together in a group of four to collaborate --> Each pair of student does two sources, get together in a group of four to collaborate

It was a bit of an eureka moment actually, when Dr Tan prodded us to the realisation that we could get students to do different sources and get together to collaborate. It challenged my presumption that every student has to learn the exact same thing in every single class. Although splitting the sources up meant that not every student will access the audio or the video, arranging it this way meant that each student would have a different piece of the puzzle, forcing them to collaborate to write the email. A stroke of genius, I say. :)

Patricia and I later decided to do pair work so that one partner can type in the note-taker, while the other views the video. The task also becomes less intimidating for students when they work in pairs.

Platform: Flash --> Powerpoint --> Wiki

Creating a button in the the new Flash CS3 threw me off big-time. It is so different in the new flash! So Flash went out of the window and we settled for the safer Powerpoint instead. Then Patricia suggested using wiki. At first I was a little confused about how to use a wiki, but after a little discussion, we realised that wiki may be ideal: it allows us to launch everything from a single platform, and it is perfect for the creation of note-takers.

So, as you can tell, we have changed just about everything from what we first imagined our SCLP to be. :)

Our SCLP: Preventing Gang Violence in Schools

-----------------------

Thoughts on the ICT course

This ICT course has firmly embedded the words "Student-centred learning" in my brain. It has given me a theory on how students learn, i.e. Constructivist theory. I learnt that teaching is so much more than presenting information. That it requires priming the students by activating their prior knowledge, setting up a learning environment that is safe, and creating opportunities for students to discover things on their own through collaborative learning.

And I learnt how ICT can play a role in Student-centred learning. It supports both indepedent learning and collaboration, and is an engaging medium for students. I picked up a few tools for my ICT tool-kit: Comic Life, Hot Potatoes, Digital Storyboarding, Wikis, etc. Read my thoughts last week.

------------------

How does the future look?

In our last class, we watched a video in2015. It's kinda crazy the things they imagine can be done in 2015. Part of me worries about the separation between the virtual and the non-virtual life. I mean, to navigate inside shopping centre, you actually bury your nose in the screen of a little gadget to tell you when to turn left! We have to live in the "real world" sometimes, if you know what I mean. I worry that we will need more Psychiatrists.

But on the other hand, I'm excited. I realise that this means that the world can be in my classroom: it is only a matter of harnessing the power of technology.

The world in my classroom... oh, the possibilities!

-----------------

Dr Tan,

Thank you for your guidance in this journey. I wish you the best in your research on Web 2.0. I am always open to the idea of doing further research.

Best regards,
Faith

Reflection on the SCLP Process

Less than a week to the submission deadline.

It is 1:20am and I'm working on my project.

On a certain level, I don't really mind the final grade I get for this course. If I were to be true to what I believe real teaching is — that knowledge is better than good grades; learning better than testing — then this class is top-notch already, no matter what my final grade is.

I've learnt key pedagogical concepts in this class that has in turn shaped my understanding of teaching in my other English and Literature classes. Who would have thought a class in ICT — a class that meets only once a week for twelve weeks — could teach me so much pedagogically?

My SCLP partner and I met Dr Tan this week to talk through our Project. The most interesting part of the meeting was near the end, when Dr Tan posed to us a question:

"Why bother doing the SCLP at all, when realistically, teachers don't have the time to create such elaborate packages?"

My first instinct was to give a utilitarian answer. Actually I gave this answer in class when Dr Tan asked it last week. I think I was sleepy, hence the bravery. I said that it was useful to do the SCLP because the process of creating such a package is important. Once you have run through the steps once, you could either replicate the SCLP on a smaller scale, or even take apart the parts for mini-lessons, for example, creating an audio clip with audacity for oral, a wiki page for the class, etc. But I think Dr Tan was looking for an answer that was a bit less pragmatic, a bit more conceptual.

While sitting there throwing about ideas on why SCLP is important — by the way, I admire Dr Tan's commitment to the thought that it is better for students to discover on their own, and hence his patience in never telling us the answer — we were gently prodded towards a realisation: that the SCLP exists to make us think out of the box and get used to working outside our comfort zone. ICT is the ideal way of keeping us on our toes because it is changes so quickly.

I realised that it is important for our time here in NIE to be an uncomfortable one — where we get prodded to do things we wouldn't normally do, think in ways we don't usually think, and consider options that we would normally think too risky. When we go back to the schools, the stress and the limited resources tend to only mean one thing: we choose the easiest and safest way to teach — the method with the most credo and the least risk. Before long, we'll get stuck in the rut using these safe methods — Comprehension; Reading; Grammar; Composition; rinse and repeat — because we are used to these methods and we think that nobody can tell us any different just by virtue of the sheer number of years we've used these methods. We would have become Senior Teachers.

I hope I will remember these things when I go back out to teach. I hope I won't get swept away by the overwhelming pressure to produce good grades, and forget that at the heart of teaching, is learning. If I can teach one thing to one person every day, it would be worth it. And although I would like to be Senior Teacher one day, I hope I will never be too stuck-up to change myself and my mindset for the sake of the students.

That's about it. I had better get back to working on the SCLP now...

Week 7: Assignment 1 deadline

It feels like we're at a transition point of our ICT course. I handed in my individually-written lesson plan today with a bit of fear and trembling since my group's lesson plan kinda sorta got butchered. Not exactly fun being pointed out to three entire classes as a "bad lesson plan" to learn from, but at least we had a lot of fun doing the group work...

Anyway, it feels like a transition because suddenly we are expected to come up with a draft proposal for an entire SCLA package in ten minutes, as if lesson plans dropped into our brains like manna. Sigh. Do you know how long I mulled over my individual lesson plan? How many times I threw out my drafts and started again for one reason or another? Lesson plans do not come naturally to me. And now I have to think of another one.

It is never the ICT that intimidates me. It is being a teacher...

---------

My group presented Hot Potatoes today. I thought our group worked very well together and did a good job. Well done Ruva, Si Min and Donna! On my part, I felt that I was talking much too quickly, without any idea whether anybody understood a word I said. Sigh. What to do. Want to be teacher, must talk and must be clear. I wonder when I'll be good at this...

Lesson 6: e-learning week

Perhaps it is because I'm just ditzy, but I always overlook the second page of the PDF instructions file. I just skim through the first page and think that is all there is to the task. This is the second time I'm doing it already. Hence, this post is a little later than normal...

1. From a learner’s point of view, how was this week’s activity related to the previous weeks’ activities? How do you think it is related to what is to come?

We wrote a 500-word article online collaboratively this week. It was an interesting process because, one, I'm not used to doing process writing; and two, I'm not used to doing process writing over email. It brings "collaborative learning", a key aspect of student-centred learning, to a whole different level.

One of the difficulties about working collaboratively over email is that you cannot respond to the body language cues of your group mates. In an office situation, where there is a clear demarcation of roles and hierarchy, it is easier to work over email. In a group of peers, where everyone is equal, it seems harder.

For me, one of the best things I took out from this collaborative process writing process was being able to see my group mates' work. Although it was the same material, they thought of things I didn't, and phrased things in a way that I wouldn't. That helped me broaden my ideas about student-centred learning, especially since that I've been thinking about SCL so much that what I think is getting stale.

2. From a teacher’s point of view, how do you think your instructor designed this task? Why was it designed this way? What considerations did he possibly take into account? What can you take away from this experience?

The imposition of a 500-word limit forced our group to collaborate further. It is pretty ingenious to use a tangible requirement to encourage a student-centred learning approach. I think this works much better than stipulating that the group "collaborate over the internet" or using any other contrived instructions.

The instruction to create our own wikis also allowed us to go through the process and troubleshoot the issues that come up, such as passwords, access, etc. There is a subtle shift from being participants in a wiki, to being creators of a wiki; and this is similiar to the shift from being students in a classroom, to being teachers.

The timing of this task is appropriate. We're about mid-way through our course, and we know our group mates better now than two weeks ago. One consideration a teacher has to have is whether it is a good time in the year to introduce certain tasks, especially when it involves collaboration.

I think that for this task, the process is more important than the content. As a teacher, I need to be aware of the processes—as that is where students learn—rather than focusing only on "project deliverables".

Lesson 5: Lesson Planning — Getting our hands dirty

This week we learnt how to translate the theoretical into the practical.

Theoretically, lesson plans should have observable and assessable objectives, employ student-centred learning approaches, and if applicable, use appropriate ICT. (See last week's post.) All this theory is very sensible, but I found that it is actually quite difficult to fit it all together in a coherent lesson plan.

What ICT should I use to re-create which aspect of a student-centred classroom for the purpose of what kind of objective?

The mind gymnastics required is quite daunting.

I admire experienced teachers who can look at a topic and formulate a student-centred, modern, engaging lesson plan in five minutes. It is a certain way of thinking that I must learn, I think; similar to the way I learnt how to "see" the outline of an essay I want to write: "intro, statement, evidence, conclusion" is kinda similar to "objective, pre-activity, activity, post-activity". But I just don't "see" in that way yet.

It helps to brainstorm in a group and to read other groups' lesson plans. Listening to other points of view breaks me out of the insular thinking that I sometimes get trapped in. Prof Tan's particularly pertinent question about whether the ICT we wanted to use aided low-level thinking or high-level thinking shed a lot of light on my thinking. (Out of the window goes my idea for assignment 1, sigh.)

If anything, it is comforting to know that I can only get better; theoretically, that is.

Lesson 4: From fluff to substance

My eureka moment: the lesson plans that I churned out as a contract teacher are nothing but fluff.

Today we learnt how to write a lesson plan. First, Prof Tan told us that lesson objectives should be observable and measurable. Now that I'm thinking about it, it seems so common-sense; yet, before my eureka moment, I am sure I peppered my lesson plans with lofty but vague words such as "understand", or even words such as "master" and "learn". How do we quantify learning? With Bloom's Taxonomy of action verbs. (See list below.)



What a useful list! It is even categorised into lower and higher mental functions. (According to Vygotsky, higher mental functions arise from social interaction. But Vygotsky's definition of higher mental functions seems less cerebral than Bloom's.) I read though the list and highlighted those that I thought may be more frequently used while teaching English and Literature.



We also learnt today that objectives must specify four aspects: audience, behaviour, condition, and degree. This is known as the ABCD model. The difficulty with such a model is that it seems tailored for the sciences. How do you quantify the extent to which a student has formulated his or her own personal response to a piece of text without having to constantly get the students to reflect on paper (or on a blog, as in the case of this class)? I will have to think about that one some more.

On the whole, an interesting and helpful lesson, as always. :) I'm getting somewhat saturated with all the methods and theories we are learning in the various classes: the science of teaching, so to speak. If I write a lesson objective with four observable aspects, that uses three student-centred learning approaches, and employs three ICT tools, does that make me a good teacher? Will I get to learn the art of teaching?

------
Postscript:

i. I like the demos.

ii. There is a free public talk by Denise Atchley coming up on 27 Aug titled "Defining Digital Storytelling".

Lesson 3: Student-Centred Learning (SCL) Approaches

Today, our class had the mind-boggling experience of learning about student-centred learning in a student-centred learning classroom. We were our own guinea pigs, so to speak. So while we were frantically looking online for information on the various types of ICT-based SCL (problem-based, case-based, inquiry-based, project-based, game-based, and resource-based) and brainstorming in our groups about a SCL lesson plan, we were at the same time supposed to be observing ourselves and the way we learn and interact in a SCL environment.

Content-wise, I learnt a bunch. For one, I learnt that there is quite a bit of overlap between the six SCL approaches. Prof Tan illustrated the relationship between the six approaches as six intersecting circles in a Venn diagram, but it wasn't until our group was trying to figure out what exactly was the difference between problem-based and project-based; project-based and inquiry-based, that we appreciated the truth of that Venn diagram. (Ah! Is that SCL at work? Did discovering it on our own by doing research online and discussing it with my group members make the content "stick in my brain" better?)

I also noticed that the overlap isn't only confined to the six SCL approaches, but that student-centred learning is stretching across practically all my classes. I find myself reading about the value of using authentic sources in my Oral communication class, about problem-based learning in my Educational Psychology class (Dr Tan Oon-Seng's book), about the negative effects of a teacher focused on "testing" rather than "teaching" in an article titled "The Backwash Effect", and many others. This student-centred learning thing is pretty pervasive.

Through today's experience of being a student in a SCL environment, I realised that the hurdle to successful implementation of SCL may not be the theory, planning, or even implementation of SCL approaches in the classroom, but rather the need for mindsets to change. Teachers need to get used to not giving all the information, and students need to get used to not being given all the answers. At some point in the lesson, I wanted Prof Tan to just tell me the answers already!, despite knowing that he wasn't going to do it. If I, a teacher-to-be learning about SCL can feel this way, what more a student who has a content-heavy exam to pass before he can graduate? How do I persuade him to change his mindset that the process is just as important as the end-point?

Reflection on Student-Centred Learning Environments & Activities

What I already know
From my reading of Connecting Student Learning and Technology, I know that a good implementation of ICT in the classroom supports both independent learning and collaboration. I also know that ICT can play the role of a resource tool, a workstation, or a communication channel. When implemented well, it encourages both active and reflective experiences, empowering traditionally under-served populations with the use of braille and speech software.

What I want to learn
What I want to learn is how to create a learning environment so that ICT can be used effectively and productively to foster student learning.

What I learned this week
I learnt that creating a conducive environment for student learning with the use of ICT is not necessarily rocket science. Sometimes it is as simple as giving clear instructions, assigning roles to students when they are doing group work, electing an IT representative to help with technical problems, telling students where to sit, and modeling appropriate behaviour.

I also learnt that it is better when teachers plan lessons with the assumption that the students are creative, intelligent people with a reservoir of prior knowledge, rather than be frightened that the students will learn nothing if they were not spoon-fed with content.

Through watching the four videos, I observed that the lack of computers is not an obstacle to having a good ICT lesson. It is possible to craft a good lesson even if there is only one computer in the classroom. This is encouraging especially when the schools are not always as well-equipped as we would like them to be.

What questions I still have
How can ICT be used to create an environment where students of different levels of ability can learn at their own pace? What research has been done on the disadvantages of ICT?

Visit to the Classroom of the Future (COTF)

The Classroom of the Future at NIE was very impressive. There was so much high-tech gadgetry in there that I kept wanting to stop listening to our guide so that I could gawk at and play with all the gadgets. But I didn't, because I'm an adult, you see.

On the surface, the COTF looked nothing like a regular classroom today.

Instead of a white board, the teacher wrote in his tablet PC which was then transmitted live to the screen. Instead of paper notebooks, each student had a Samsung Q1 UMPC where they could do their assignments. Instead of rolling balls down planks to learn about velocity, they bombed their friend's tanks in an interactive game projected on the wall. (And instead of chatting to their friend sitting beside them, they could chat and play tic-tac-toe with anyone in the classroom via instant messaging.)

It was an impressive set-up, but I suspect that the COTF and our current classrooms aren't as different as they look. They just use different tools to achieve the same goals — ultimately, teachers are still facilitating learning through interaction with peers, research, scaffolding, homework and games — although, it may be said that in some instances, high-tech tools do the work better than low-tech ones.

For example, high-tech tools work better than low-tech tools because they tend to be more interactive. Click something and you get a response straight away. You can talk to a professor in London in real time, do online research, and drive a tank even. It is hard to get bored with so much interactivity, but who knows, students have a remarkable capacity to be bored...

Another way high-tech tools encourage student learning is by its ability to simulate real life. In current learning environments, students read about problems and think about solutions. In the COTF, students observe problems and work at solutions. Students get an email from a student in France with a question and they can immediately analyse skin samples, talk to real-life experts, and create graphs. It is a more productive and relevant way to learn.

A lot of the learning in the COTF was student-driven. The teacher never came right out to give the formula for velocity and speed, preferring to let the student discover it on his own through the interactive game. I think it would be a bit uncomfortable for me to leave so much learning to the initiative of the students, but that is one of the things that teachers must learn in the classroom of the future: to let go.

Is such a classroom of the future viable? Why not? But we mustn't get so caught up with our new-fangled tools that we forget the purpose of the tools. I still like paper and pen, whiteboard and marker, real faces and real smiles, and I wouldn't give any of that up for all the high-tech gadgets in the world.

Lesson 1: Meeting the Prof for the very first time

It was an interesting and fast-paced lesson. We had to do like 20 things in 20 minutes — watch two videos, answer four questions, write five things about ourselves, post a photo, start a blog, etc. — but it was through these tasks that we got a feel of what the following twelve weeks would be like.

It looks promising. :)

For one, Prof Tan orientated us to the focus of the course: student-centred learning. The title of our course is "ICT for engaged learning", which seems to put the focus on ICT (Information and Communications Technologies). However, the focus of the course is actually on the tail end of the title ("engaged learning"), and how teachers can foster student-centred learning in a classroom with the use of ICT. It's a subtle difference, but an important one I think, considering that you can have all the ICT in the world and all you achieve is a very high-tech classroom with many attention-deficient and screen-obsessed teenagers.

I'm looking forward to this class. At this point, I've no idea how to encourage student-centred learning, so I've lots to learn. Along the way, I also hope someone can help me with turning the Moodle on my mac to something usable in a classroom. Personal agenda. Heh. :)