Jan-Marie's blog

This is a revised version of an earlier blog with changes I’ve made as a result of conversations with other educators and my continued readings and research. I have now removed the earlier blog entry. This blog relates to the different models of inquiry and the debate about which is best.

Some models seen on places like the Inquiry page http://inquiry.uiuc.edu/ seem to have very science/maths based type investigations. While information literacy is a goal these have a basis in the scientific method. Many have evolved to include  creative options for students.

Well the e-fellow journey is half way through and it is time to reflect. Overall it has been a very exciting and worthwhile experience but there have been some ups and downs.

My first efforts at collecting data were very frustrating, I sent out hundreds of teacher questionnaires and received very few replies. Being a teacher myself I understand how busy teachers are, but I really do think the results will be helpful to teachers in the classroom. The replies so far have generated some very useful information. If you have one you were thinking about completing but thought it was too late, please send it to me. A big thanks to those teachers who have returned the questionnaires and especially to those who have agreed to the second stage of further questionnaires and interviews.

Working with the students has proved to be very rewarding. My GATE groups have completed their inquiries and are moving to the presentation stage this term. The group which was focused on cloning, moved to cloning of endangered species, then to the future of cloning, it’s actually been quite hard to bring this to a close as one question has led to another in their inquiry.

The second GATE group chose to investigate whether Marineland should get a new dolphin. Their timing was perfect, as just as they finished some residents of Napier took a petition to the Council asking them to approve the purchase of another dolphin. The students then e-mailed the Council and Chris Carter with their opinions backed by the findings from their research. Last week they received a reply from Chris Carter but are still waiting to hear from the Council.

The model of using the KnowledgeNet, computers (mainly wireless laptops) and ActivBoard to facilitate inquiry learning with a group of GATE students has proved very successful. There have been a few issues with internet access at home for students, especially those with dial-up but these have been resolved by allowing students class time or time at lunchtime using school computers to complete projects. The students have found the KnowledgeNet very useful for accessing the resources related to their inquiry. The portability of the laptops has been a feature often remarked upon positively by the students. As a teacher I have found the ActivBoard extremely useful for modelling and demonstrating work, recording brainstorms and sharing website information with the students. The ability to be able to save work to review in later sessions is extremely useful in inquiry. (I used to use pages of newsprint to do this but this is much more efficient.) Parent feedback, especially regarding being able to access their child's work at home, has been very positive.

I had an interesting discussion with the students about sharing computers. They had initially said that they didn’t like sharing computers but when I talked to them further they said they were fine with sharing so long as they could choose who they shared with.  What they didn’t like was the tendency of teachers to pair a child having difficulties, with reading for instance, with one who was confident, as they felt this held them back from doing their best work. They were more than happy to work in pairs if they could choose their partner. This seems to confirm Gary Falloon’s finding (Falloon 2004) that students worked best in cooperative pairs of like ability.

So this term I will finish working with my GATE groups, interview five teachers who are using ICTs to facilitate inquiry, collect more student questionnaires and continue analysing data. I will also be sorting out my preliminary findings to present at the ULearn conference in September. Hopefully I will see some of you there.

Falloon, G. (2004). "Cooperative Groupings as an Organisational System for Classroom Computer-use." Computers in New Zealand Schools 16(1): 31 - 35.         

The question of student ownership has been a vexing one for me and it is a topic I have written about previously www.efellows.org.nz/?q=node/270. Yes, I believe it is important that students have ownership of their inquiry, but how do we achieve this in the classroom and still cover the topics we consider are important for students, but for which they show little interest? How, for that matter, do we work on topics they don’t even know exist? Recently I read Jacqueline Brooks’ book  ‘In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms’ which seemed to offer some answers.

“One common criticism of constructivism is that, as a pedagogical framework, it subordinates the curriculum to the interests of the child. Critics contend that the constructivist approach stimulates learning only around concepts in which the students have a pre-kindled interest. Such criticisms miss the mark. Posing problems of emerging relevance is a guiding principle of constructivist pedagogy. However, relevance does not have to be pre-existing for the student. Not all students arrive at the classroom door interested in learning about verb constructs, motion and mechanics, biological cycles, or historical timelines, but most students can be helped to construct understandings of the importance of these topics. Relevance can emerge through teacher mediation. In discussing Dewey’s notion that education ought to take into account students’ interests, Bruner (1971) writes:

. . . a point of departure is not an itinerary. It is just as mistaken to sacrifice the adult to the child as to sacrifice the child to the adult. It is sentimentalism to assume that the teaching of life can be fitted always to the child’s interests just as it is empty formalism to force the child to parrot the formulas of adult society. Interests can be created and stipulated (p. 117).”

(Brooks, 1999, p. 35)

Brooks goes on to explain some of the ways we can kindle that interest thus giving students ownership of their inquiry. This fits well with the ideas I discussed previously about guided inquiry. It also fits well with the immersion or knowledge attack stage of an inquiry. This book is well worth reading, I can certainly recommend it.

References

Brooks, Jacqueline Grennon. (1999). In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria, VA, USA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Bruner, J. (1971). The Relevance of Education. N. Y.: Norton.

This year I have had opportunity to talk to a large number of teachers as part of my e-fellows research. One recurring theme has been computer technicians. There seem to be two categories of tech people in schools. One sort are indispensable - they are often teachers, have a teaching background or at the very least have an understanding of learning and the needs of teachers and students. They spend many hours, often unpaid and often unthanked, keeping computers running in classrooms. They help to make computers work for teachers and students. If teachers have a problem they go out of their way to find solutions. They understand that sometimes students will change computer settings but empower teachers by showing them how to fix the most common of these changes. They take these problems as an inevitable side effect of giving freedoms, but know that the benefits in terms of learning far outweigh any difficulties.

The other sort of technician would rather have no teachers or students getting in the way of the smooth running of their computers. They lockdown systems so tightly that no-one can change anything. They grump and groan when problems occur and take weeks to fix them. They complain constantly about students and teachers who create more work for them.

If the school has internet filtering software they have so many filters in place students and teachers can’t find anything. If teachers want sites added to the exceptions list they take weeks to consider this and more weeks before they do something about it - usually after the unit it was needed for has finished.

These people don’t give teachers any rights at all over their computers and certainly don’t show them how to do anything - that would take away from their power. They don’t take the time to explain the reasons behind their decisions and certainly don’t want to discuss them.

The result of this is we end up with computers sitting idle because they are so locked down they are useless. Teachers who were a little reluctant to use computers use these incidents as an excuse not to use them. Teachers who want to use them tear their hair out trying to get anything done. The technicians are happy - computers that aren’t being used don’t have problems. The students however are missing out and we shouldn’t let this happen.

Now I know these are two extremes but most technicians fall on a continuum somewhere between the two. If your tech person is nearer the first end of the spectrum, be thankful and, more importantly - thank them. If yours falls nearer the other end, challenge them, speak to the people who have influence and force changes. Yes there will be some problems when computers are freed up but the sky will not fall in and teachers may actually be able to use computers the way they were intended - to facilitate learning.

If you have any horror stories about the second type of technician I would love to hear them - e-mail me at jkellow@xtra.co.nz or write a comment on my blog if you want to share it with others. If you have one of the first sort I’d love to hear about that too - these people need to be recognised.

This blog entry has been modified. To see it go to www.efellows.org.nz/?q=node/397

I have begun work with two GATE groups (year 6, 7 & 8 students) as part of my research and it is going really well. The two groups have decided on their topics: 'Should we clone endangered species?' and 'Should marine mammals be kept in captivity?' They have explored prior knowledge, are developing their research plan, are compiling lists of subsidiary questions and have begun some background research.

The students are using the KnowledgeNet as their online personal learning environment. I can post tasks, forums and resources for them and they are journaling their thoughts, ideas, questions and findings. This will be especially useful while I am in Christchurch for the next two weeks as part of my e-fellowship as I can keep in touch with their progress while I am away. I can also give them feedback on their work and answer any questions they may have. I shall be interested to see how they get on with this long-distance learning.

I've just read the Becker article "Findings from the Teaching, Learning and Computing Survey: Is Larry Cuban Right?" His analysis of a survey of over 4000 teachers in America found that when 3 conditions were present a majority of teachers made active and regular use of computers in classrooms. Those conditions were:

1. Teachers needed to be constructivist-oriented.

2. There needed to be 5 or more computers in a typical sized class.

3. Teachers needed a reasonable level of skill and experience in using computers themselves.

This seems a reasonable finding to me, one that I think could be applied in New Zealand. What do you think?

You can find the whole article at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n51/