agregador de noticias
Los alumnos desarrollarán en 'Apps and games!' y el resto de proyectos la comprensión oral y escrita, practicarán gramática y adquirirán vocabulario para aplicar lo aprendido en los desafíos que cada recurso les plantea.
El hilo conductor de los diez REA basados en ABP serán las nuevas tecnologías y los medios audiovisuales. Internet, aplicaciones y juegos para smartphones u otros dispositivos electrónicos, televisión o prensa serán algunos de los temas protagonistas de los contenidos para 2º de ESO de "What a digital world!".
Jane Hart publicó hace unos días los resultados de una encuesta entre 2000 profesionales de la Formación, incluyendo tanto el Sistema Educativo como la Formación en la Empresa. Y ha obtenido su lista de las 100 herramientas (entornos y aplicaciones digitales) más importantes para el aprendizaje (1*). Esta clasificación la lleva haciendo desde el año 2007 así que puede resultar interesante como indicadora de tendencias.
- La herramienta preferida es… ¡Twitter!. Y lo lleva siendo 7 años seguidos.
- El primer software específicamente educativo que aparece es Moodle… ¡en el puesto 15! Y ha descendido 3 puestos. Edmodo ocupa el 39 y ha subido 2 lugares.
- Si desea preparar materiales de aprendizaje, no olvidar a Articulate (puesto 26), pero si quiere grabar un vídeo con una presentación, aproveche ese pequeño recurso, PowToon que ocupa el puesto 10 (después de subir ¡27 lugares! este año)
- ¿Y sobre los MOOC o similares? Khan ocupa el puesto 33 y Coursera el 44.
- Entre los 5 primeros, tres recursos de Google (Youtube, y subiendo; búsquedas de Google; Google Drive). El quinto es el siempre presente PowerPoint.
- La Wikipedia se mantiene entre los primeros 25 (en el puesto 12) junto con Blogger y Wordpress, aunque éste último le gana al anterior por 10 puestos.
- Skype recupera 16 puestos este año, llegando al lugar 9 (llegó a estar el tercero) quizás gracias a Skype for Business y Skype in the Classroom. Pero, ¡ojo!, este año entra en juego por primera vez Google Hangouts (separado de Google+, y lo hace en el puesto 23.
Encontrará muchas herramientas conocidas en esta lista. Y algunas nuevas. Pero una conclusión destaca: los recursos abiertos de la web 2.0 dominan. Puede ser la consecuencia de una desviación en la muestra. Pero el dato coincide con mis “indicadores personales” (es decir, lo que observo en esos colegas que no son especialistas en Tecnología educativa pero son inquietos e innovadores ☺.
Desde hace años utilizo y enseño en mis cursos únicamente estos recursos abiertos, generalmente enfrentado o tolerado por las organizaciones que prefieren entornos cerrados. No hace falta ser muy brillante para darse cuenta que estos (Twitter, Youtube, Google, Dropbox…) responden al espíritu inicial de Internet (releer a Tim Berners-Lee). Los otros, las plataformas como Moodle, los repositorios de cursos como Coursera, “utilizan” Internet adaptándolo a un modelo de enseñanza/aprendizaje tradicional. ¿Por qué?
- Mayor control de la actividad del alumno.
- Protección de la privacidad de los participantes.
- Protección de los derechos de autor (entendidos de una forma determinada).
- Asegurar la recuperación de las inversiones y las ganancias derivadas.
Pero si Vd. estuviera enseñanza a conducir a su hijo o hija: ¿le haría llevar el coche únicamente por circuitos cerrados y protegidos o lo acompañaría en su aprendizaje en calles de verdad y entre coches de verdad?
Internet ha creado un nuevo modo de conocer (2*).
Ahora está creando un nuevo modo de enseñar y aprender.
Hart, J. (2015). Top 100 Tools for Learning 2015.
Puede verse también en forma de presentación multimedia en:
Es el síndrome de Frankestein según lo enunció Postman en 1991 . Puede verse el tema desarrollado en:
Bartolomé, A. (1996). Preparando para un nuevo modo de conocer. Edutec. Revista electrónica de tecnología Educativa, 4. Dic. 1996.
Innovation Design In Education - ASIDE: A Philosophy Of Education: Energy, Inspiration, And Understanding
Innovative design crosses over all aspects of education. The American Society for Innovation Design in Education, or ASIDE, seeks to infuse curriculum with new approaches to teaching and thinking. Integrating the design of information into the daily conversation is an essential part of the teacher's toolkit and the purpose of the ASIDE blog. The underpinning of innovation and educational design is based on looking at the information available and communicating meaning for a world of learners. Thinking like a designer can transform the way children learn. ASIDE's goal is to bring together as much information, resources and supportive scholarship in one place for teaching and learning.
See it on Scoop.it, via Educación flexible y abierta
This paper examines the use of MOOCs in a classroom setting (a phenomenon called 'wrapped MOOCs', though I haven't heard the expression used recently). "Students in blended MOOCs in traditional classrooms performed almost equal or slightly better than students in only face-to-face class environment, no significant evidence of negative effects for any subgroups in the hybrid model, lower levels of student satisfaction, and limited participation in discussion forums provided by MOOCs." Which seems to be a bit of a wash. But then again, the primary use of the MOOC is not deployment in a traditional classroom setting.[Link] [Comment]
Contact North has organised a series of four webinars highlighting the practical advice and guidelines offered in my online, open textbook, Teaching in a Digital Age. The first webinar took place last week on September 29. It covered the first five chapters in the book, which discuss:
- the implications of the major changes taking place in education
- epistemologies that drive approaches to teaching and learning
- different teaching methods and their appropriateness for developing the knowledge and skills needed in a knowledge-based society.
The aim of the webinar was not to cover the same ground as in the book, but to provide an opportunity for participants to raise questions or comments about these issues, which was what they did. I received and answered nearly 30 different questions in the one hour. You can access the recording here: https://contactnorth.webex.com/contactnorth/lsr.php?RCID=67ca245af5fa7a21546ba37e10f306ba
In particular, there were questions about the importance of passion in teaching, whether learners today are really different, how to engage passive learners or introverts online, how to get students to take responsibility for learning, how to get students to collaborate online, and lastly whether cognitivism is an epistemology or a learning theory. I did answer all these questions briefly within the webinar.
On listening again to the recording, though, I was struck by the interest or concern of participants for what I would call the intangibles or the more human aspects in teaching and learning, such as the importance of passion in teaching and learning, dealing with learners’ ‘readiness’ or motivation to learn, building relationships between online learners and instructors, and how to encourage/develop interaction, discussion and collaboration between learners.
This brought home to me that for most instructors, teaching is not just a technical activity that can be categorized, systematised and computerised, but is a fundamentally human practice that requires empathy, intuition, and imagination. These are qualities that cannot be automated.
The next webinar, which will cover chapters 6-9 on media and technology selection, will be on November 3, 2015. For more details, click here.
Otra manera de aprender y enseñar Historia es ya posible sin sobrecargarnos de trabajo ni perder de vista los objetivos del currículo. Proyecto EDIA nos ofrece contenidos y recursos completos, gratuitos y basados en metodología ABP.
Estos contenidos completos, descargables y modificables permiten que cualquier docente pueda proponer a sus alumnos secuencias en las que aprenden los contenidos de Historia, creando, compartiendo y difundiendo
El docente no tendrá que dedicar tiempo a preparar materiales, contenidos o recursos de evaluación. Cada recurso educativo abierto (REA) incluye todos los materiales necesarios para el aula y para casa.
Highly recommended: tweet something trollish before you get on a plane for 10+ hours. (e.g. this tweet.) How many people will take advantage of your Internet silence to mansplain ed-tech to you?
Anyway, Mattel has a new View-Master that uses Google Cardboard. The history of the future of toys, or something. That Google Cardboard = View-Master should perhaps maybe possibly give you pause about how AMAZING Google Cardboard is. But nope. Hype and revolution. Same as it ever was…
Next person who tells me Google Cardboard is innovative gets punched in the view master http://t.co/AmnA7rbPkp— Audrey Watters (@audreywatters) October 2, 2015
See, here’s the thing. I realize that Mattel’s new View-Master is appealing for the sake of nostalgia. My grandparents had an early stereoscope at their house, and it was always one of my favorite toys – the slides were fascinating because, unlike the content of the classic red View-Master I had myself, these were not full-color images of Disneyland or Disney movies. They were black-and-white scenes from from the early 1900s – I was utterly fascinated by the furniture, the costumes, the poses.
I suppose I spent a fair number of hours with one or other of these pressed to my face. But I would never call the View-Master “VR.” Yes, there’s a distortion that makes the images appear to be three-dimensional. But I’ve always imagined that “VR” meant a more immersive experience than that. The emphasis, if you will, should be on the “reality” not simply on the “virtual.”
Seriously, can you imagine if a teacher said “my students looked at pictures of Verona through the View-Master and now they have a better understanding of Romeo and Juliet”? We’d scoff, wouldn’t we? Yet that’s precisely the crap I’m hearing about Google Cardboard.
Oh, I realize that Google Cardboard seems to have impressed a lot of folks in ed-tech. But that’s a low bar. Look at Google Docs and Google Spreadsheets, for example: their big selling point – besides being free – is that they don’t have all the bells and whistles of the more bloated Microsoft Office. It’s “minimum viable productivity software.” Looks at the Google Chromebook. It’s a “minimum viable laptop.” (Let's pause and consider here what we really mean by "viable" - what gets lost.)
Similarly, you could call Google Cardboard “minimum viable virtual reality.” Here are the necessary components, which Google boasts you can assemble yourself for about $20: a piece of cardboard, 45 mm focal length lenses, magnets, Velcro, a rubber band, an optional NFC tag, and an Android phone.
The “virtual reality” offered by Google Cardboard comes via the display of a smartphone phone, distorted by those 45 mm lenses. The “virtual reality” offered by Google Expeditions, the special field trip lessons created by Google, are “panoramas,” according to the Google blog: “360° photo spheres, 3D images and video, ambient sounds – annotated with details, points of interest, and questions that make them easy to integrate into curriculum already used in schools.”
They’re videos, people. They’re photographs. The view is just held up to each student’s face rather than projected at the front of the screen. Yes, some special VR apps are being developed for Android, but the limitations of this system are pretty clear. This is no Oculus Rift, which is rumored to retail for around $350 when it eventually hits the market. Google Cardboard runs on a smartphone.
I’ve already written about how I think Google Expeditions will be just another example of how ed-tech furthers inequality. Actual, real field trips are already on decline, particularly for low-income students. And actual, real field trips really do have a lasting educational impact – one that watching a film via a device strapped on your face just can’t rival.
I’ve heard a lot lately that “no one is arguing that virtual field trips will replace field trips.” Yeah. Bullshit. Field trips have already been excised from the school day to make way for other things – more test-prep, more testing via computer, for starters. But there’s something else that Google Cardboard is going to replace too: these cheap Google Expeditions – and this flawed argument that that counts as “virtual reality” – are likely going to prevent (or at least slow) more immersive VR experiences from ever entering schools too. Why pay for that when you can convince yourself that the 21st century version of the View-Master count as VR?
For the second in this mini series on open education we ask ‘How open is open education’? How open is open sounds a bit of a stupid question. But lets just start by looking at some of the definitions of Open Education. According to wikipedia: “Open education is a philosophy about the way people should produce, share, and build on knowledge.”
Proponents of open education believe everyone in the world should have access to high-quality educational experiences and resources, and they work to eliminate barriers to this goal. Such barriers might include high monetary costs, outdated or obsolete materials, and legal mechanisms that prevent collaboration among scholars and educators.”
But the European Union is backing Open Education with their open education europa web site providing a “gateway to open education resources”. However they say they are enacting the Europe policy on ‘Opening up education’. This “proposes actions towards more open learning environments to deliver education of higher quality and efficacy and thus contributing to the Europe 2020 goals of boosting EU competitiveness and growth through better skilled workforce and more employment.”
These seem rather different goals. Is open education about a believe that everyone in the world should have access to high-quality educational experiences and resources of is it about boosting EU competitiveness and growth?
Lets make no mistake. The spread of open education resources, MOOCs, open access journals and of course Open Source Software are big steps forward. But how far have they taken us: how open is open. I am not sure whether by plan or serendipity but three of the keynote speakers at this years EDEN conference, held in Barcelona in June addressed this question, albeit with different accents.
Jim Groom attacked the soulless of corporate-driven ed tech saying “it robs the field of any deep, meaningful interrogation of the issues we need to be struggling with, such as digital identity, digital fluency the new cultures around piracy and privacy, student empowerment, and how we can begin to think like the web.” None of this happens in an LMS (or VLE), he said. “in fact, that systematic design of that system is anathema to all of these crucial elements of educating in the digital era.”
Jim highlighted how the edupunk discourse had been subverted by corporate and political interests. Rather than talking about new cultures they wanted to highlight the failure of public institutions.
Martin Weller’s speech was entitled the battle for openness (the title of his recent book). In an interview prior to the conference he said: “Generally I think the use of new tech has allowed education to be more flexible, and opened it up beyond the traditional notion of what constituted a university student. But there has also been some terrible hype about new developments, and technology can also been seen as a route for commercial interests to undermine the role of the university.”
And in a brainstorming performance Audrey Waters pointed out the contribution of education to the creation of the web. The web and open education is reliant on an open infrastructure but private and corporate interests were fighting to take control. She called this cultural imperialism.
There seems to be a common message here. Whilst there are advances in opening up education corporate interests (including governments) are subverting the discourses for their own purposes. Rather than seeing MOOCs as an opportunity to provide education to those who had no access or could not afford traditional courses (which is the same thing) Silicon Valley investors pumped money into private MOOC providers to the hope of disrupting education and opening upo the market for private capital (and profit). When investors started losing patience with how long this disruption was taking, founder of Udacity, Sebastion Thrun announced MOOCs were a “lousy product” and he saw the future in selling paid for closed inline training courses.
And rather than moving to genuine open publishing through federated online repositories, the UK government has backed the so called Gold Model which guarantees publishers a rick future income stream form authors (an article entitled ‘Open access fees hike universities’ journal bills‘ in this weeks Times Higher says universities are paying more than ever to publishers).
So Martin Weller is right – there is a battle for open. And that battle is getting ever wider. But as well as fighting on a day to day level over actions, we also need to become clear as to what our vision for openness is and how open we think open should be.
Graphic Recording of Keynotes by Maria Calvet. Video editing by Gabriel Gómez.
Doug Belshaw shared this item this week (in his newly and inappropriately named 'Thought Shrapnel' newsletter). It's a paean from the Guardian to a school that has banned all screens and electronics at home and in the classroom. The parents are concerned about the impact of technology; I would be far more concerned about the lack of it. But don't take my word for it. Belshaw also recommends "this eviscerating takedown by Laura Hilliger." She writes, "Teaching kids how to think about technology and be digital citizens is not going to become outdated. There are literacies to be explored, we have to teach people how to live and participate with new technologies. In 50 years the only thing that’ s going to be outdated is the idea that you can get by in this world without some basic understandings about tech, networks, human communications."[Link] [Comment]
Yesterday Sarah Honeychurch wrote a first blog post in response to the challenge and came up with Fools march in which is a brief but pithy reflection on professional practice and human impulsiveness using a tentative connection between Alexander Pope and the cartoon characters Roobarb and Custard (I love it!).
Andrew Smith swiftly followed up on my #twistedpair challenge with another strange pairing: How Monty Python and Albert Einstein inform my professional outlook just goes to prove my point that a lot of lateral thinking can be generated when we stretch our imagination a little. I created a whole bunch of other unlikely pairings in my initial blogpost. What kind of conversation might Tarzan have had with Jean Piaget? How might the love child of Marshall McLuhan and Madonna have turned out? Would Han Solo have been BFF with Queen Elizabeth I or would he have been beheaded? And what the heck has that to do with education?
Feel free to choose one of the unlikely pairs, or better still, make your own up, and join in with the fun and mayhem, as together we explore our professional practise through humour, imagery and creativity. I look forward to reading your #twistedpair blogs!
Einstein, Monty Python and lateral thinking #twistedpair by Steve Wheeler was written in Plymouth, England and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.Posted by Steve Wheeler from Learning with e's
I think this assertion is correct: "a chief aim of higher education should be to cultivate higher degrees of personal agency within students. As a result, the demands placed on higher education institutions have become much more complex." The reasons for this are myriad, but stem essentially from the fact that it is not possible to identify a single set of competencies (beyond the very basics) that will ensure successful lives for graduates. The environment just changes too often and too quickly. And I agree with this: "access to and participation in meaningful lifelong educational opportunities is one of the chief human rights issues of our generation."[Link] [Comment]
It's happened before: you might remember the #blimage and #blideo challenges from the summer. The first was a challenge where you were sent an image to inspire you to write about learning. The second was the same idea, but with a video.
Many of those who participated said it caused them to think more deeply and creatively about how they teach or learn. Some remarked that they had discovered new bloggers they didn't know existed, and many reported that their blog traffic had increased significantly. It was a win-win for everyone who took part.
So here's my idea. It's called twisted pair. After my post from yesterday about how Socrates and Julie Andrews (a strange pairing indeed) influenced my teaching, I got to wondering. Are there any other strange (twisted) pairs that would inspire people to write thoughtful blog posts on education and learning? Well, if anyone is up for this challenge, here are a few very strange pairings to get you going. I bet you can think of loads more.
Batman and John Dewey
Michaelangelo and you
Paulo Freire and the Hunchback of Notre Dame
Eddie Izzard and Pavlov's dogs
Jack Sparrow and Nelson Mandela
Pablo Picasso and Sir Tim Berners-Lee
Micky Mouse and Adolf Hitler
Han Solo and Queen Elizabeth I
William Shakespeare and Buzz Lightyear
Tarzan and Jean Piaget
Paddington Bear and Barack Obama
Jean Jacques Rousseau and the Easter Bunny
Walt Disney and the Grim Reaper
Sir Winston Churchill and the entire cast of Frozen
Doctor Who and Snoopy
Jack Bauer and the Teletubbies
Mr Spock and Margaret Thatcher
Go on - I dare you. Choose a strange pairing from above (or make up one of your own, the weirder the better). Let your imagination run wild, go very slightly unhinged and dig deep into your knowledge of those characters. Some of the connections may be tenuous. That's part of the fun. Come up with an inspirational, satirical or thought provoking blog post about teaching and learning. Share it and include the tag #twistedpair. Don't forget to also challenge at least three other people. If we get enough responses, I will create a page that links them all together. Up for the challenge? Let's twist again, like we did last summer...
Photo by Baran Ivo on Wikimedia Commons
Twisted Pair #twistedpair by Steve Wheeler was written in Plymouth, England and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.Posted by Steve Wheeler from Learning with e's
I've used this service before and will probably use it again. In a nutshell, it enables you to create a place where people can send files to our cloud storage accounts (like, say, Dropbox) without having to give out credentials to your cloud storage account. They simply send to DropItToMe and this service sends it to your cloud storage.[Link] [Comment]
This makes me happy: "The most significant breakthrough is anywhere-anytime learning, which automatically eliminates the space and time barriers that traditional classrooms represent. Completely online courses already do this, but MOOCs are rattling the concrete and steel infrastructure that has defined course development in higher ed for the last century.... MOOCs are a liberating force, adding options to their palette that they couldn’ t imagine just a few years ago." It comes in the context of an interview with FutureLearn CEO Jonathan Moules.[Link] [Comment]
European Schoolnet, Oct 02, 2015
This is less a report and more a list of activities and resources available to teachers in Europe to foster innovation in their classrooms. The document lists a number of online courses, webinars, and teacher communities such as Scientix - "that supports the exchanges of ideas, practices and experiences essential for the teaching of STEM to be fresh, relevant and engaging."[Link] [Comment]