Music is sounds that are chosen and organised by an individual, in order to have meaning for them. The sounds may or may not be performed with or for one or more others in order to share the experience and the meaning of the sounds but they must be sounds, not abstract symbols, to be fully received and understood. Musical sound must, therefore, be at the heart of every music lesson.
I want my students to be able to create and organise sounds in a way that is meaningful for them and also for their audience. I want them to be able to get inside a piece of music and hear, experience and observe how it works; to understand the tools and techniques that creators use to create, organise, develop and share their musical ideas and statements – what Green (2008) refers to ‘inter-sonic meaning’– and then to use these tools and techniques in their own act of creating.
I have tended to use listening and performance as the investigation mode, while composition and performance have been the products that my students use to demonstrate their learning. My students and I can benefit from using technology as a tool to support learning in all three musical processes – creating, performing and responding to music. I can see how technology has the ability to open up composing-based investigations activities to more sophisticated and reflective level of exploration.
The use of play – playing with sounds, playing with effects, playing with interpretation and playing with ideas and meaning – are all aspects of my classroom environment that can incorporate, and be enhanced by, the use of technology. Technology allows for what composer and educator, Trevor Wishart, and others refer to as “immediacy” (Green, 2008, p. 60), an aural-based, direct contact with the music, not blocked or mediated by notation. This immediacy is not dependent on technology but it is supported and enriched by it. The computer is, indeed, an instrument – a means of giving expression to a student’s creative mind. The array of sounds and pre-recorded loops allow students to quickly and easily create relatively sophisticated pieces that mimic what they hear in their musical culture.
William (2011) expresses a common theme in the contemporary understanding of pedagogy. “The teacher’s job is not to transmit knowledge, nor to facilitate learning. It is to engineer effective learning environments for the students. The key features of effective learning environments are that they create student engagement and allow teachers, learners and their peers to ensure that learning is proceeding in the intended direction” (p.50). Green (2008) refers to the experience of an effective musical learning environment as a ‘celebration’ (p. 88).
I am a learner as well as a teacher, while my pupils are teachers as well as learners. Yet the challenge from Sugata Mitra (2103) and Lucy Green (2008) that children can teach themselves and accomplish high standards of engagement and competence has caused me to re-think my approach to what constitutes an effective learning environment and embrace the concept of informal learning.
I have long held the view that all music is good music if it moves you (physically, emotionally, cognitively and spiritually). I also recognise that the effect of music is largely due to enculturation. As teachers we are expected to introduce children to the foundations of their society and culture – not in an imperialist or dogmatic way – but with a view to connecting students with the creative spirits that have shaped, recorded and reflected that culture and to assist them to understand the significance and purpose of music within its cultural and social context.
Education is also about nurturing children and young people. I believe that this involves protecting children from language, images, ideas, attitudes and actions that can harm them emotionally, socially, cognitively and spiritually – Green’s ‘delineated meaning’ (2008, p. 87). ‘Critical musicality’ (Green, 2008, pp.83-84) is about challenging students’ thinking, expanding their empathy and understanding as well as enabling them to be creative problem solvers. Music is about enjoyment but it should also nourish the spirit. Music brings individual pleasure but it has the ability to create community. Music is about self-expression but it can enable a group to speak with one voice. Music is about identity – whether individual, cultural, sub-cultural or tribal – but it is also about a wider collective identity, sometimes referred to as our shared humanity or the human condition.
The privilege of connecting children with the great minds and spirits of all ages, opening their ears to the voice of others, giving flight to their imagining of the possible, requires music teachers to be courageous and discerning in their choice of music – knowing that it won’t always be popular and it won’t always have the stamp of “a classic”. In the music classroom, teacher and pupils are all members of the audience when music is being played. But the classroom context has the ability to alienate (Hein, 2015; Green, 2008, p. 90) and the teacher must be aware and adopt approaches that counter this negative effect.
As connectors, teachers are able to make new connections for students with familiar music from the students’ own culture, by creating effective learning environments in which the students have time to ‘celebrate’ the techniques and meaning of those familiar examples. Students then learn how to apply the knowledge and skills gained, in personally meaningful examples, to novel examples. They perceive continuity between the musical examples and experience both inclusiveness and diversity in the acceptance of their culture and the culture of others.
This connection of meaning in learning is the basis of a Relational Epistemology in which a student’s depth of knowledge is linked to the strength of the connections that they have in the learning process. These include the student’s relationship with the learning object (in this case a song or a musical skill); with the teacher who will guide and affirm their observing and creating; with the composer or songwriter through the music and with their fellow students as they perform together and for each other and join together to solve problems.
It is encouraging that technology has become a tool for creative collaboration, for communication and for creating an audience. These twenty-first century skills are at the core of music education and all are skills facilitated by technology. The twenty-first century music classroom is a place where these skills are valued and nurtured in ways that set an example of innovation and reflection for learning throughout the school and throughout life.
References
Green, L. 2008. Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy. Oxon: Routledge
Hein, E. (2015). The promise and perils of the digital studio. In S. A. Ruthmann & R. Mantie (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of technology and music education. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Mitra, Sugata. 2013. Build a School in the Cloud. Ted talk February 2013. Retrieved 19/01/2016 from https://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_build_a_school_in_the_cloud?language=en
William, D. 2011. Embedded: formative assessment . Moorabbin, Vic.: Hawker Brownlow Education
Saturday, February 4, 2017
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Music Education Can Lead All Education
I began this MOOC wanting to see how the pedagogy and use of technology at our school measured up. I’m pleased to find that we do pretty well on limited resources. We use a range of sequencing, recording and notation software and set our students real-life projects to complete using this technology.
Technology-based music has always been an important topic in all of our music programs and the musical skills and the multiple roles of the contemporary DJ are examples that we study. This topic is one where the “Open” nature of learning and information is evident. The range of music that my students bring to share in these lessons is testament to this, and their ability to “discover” the up and coming names in these genres is testament to their discernment. Certainly my better students are taking advantage of open learning but I sense that this is not as widespread as researchers such as David Price suggest – or perhaps it is that my definition of learning is too narrow. There is a fair degree of online interaction but the emphasis appears to be on the social rather than study, from the evidence available in class.
It also needs to be acknowledged that the “Information Super-highway” is a dangerous place to play. I came across one tutorial last year where the author spent a large percentage of time belittling viewers for even needing to ask for help with what he obviously considered was a simple task.
I think that there are still significant issues that have not been addressed in this MOOC. There is space here only to mention two of these. The first is money. Our storeroom contains the evidence of the pace at which Technology changes: sound modules and midi interfaces that are no longer required, boxes of pre-and post Mac OSX software are just two examples. Even the so-called Open-Source software such as Soundtrap is quick to offer you their Premium package – for a fee of course. The attraction of BYO, BAB and Open Source software is that this cost transfers from the school to the family.
In a recent article on improvements to student outcomes, School smarts push students on path to uni, the identified factors correlate strongly with those of John Hattie: parent involvement, goal setting, environment and the relationship between teacher and student. There is no specific mention of the BLs or any other pedagogical approaches.
I am affirmed by this MOOC in the approaches that I have taken in teaching Music and other subjects using technology and pedagogical approaches such as Problem-Based and Inquiry-Based Learning. I have found Lucy Green’s approach to informal learning one worth investigating and pursuing. I am challenged to be more deliberate in modelling and identifying open learning amongst my students.
The false distinction between vocation, academic and personal interest subjects that has long prevailed has lost sight of the educational as well as the individual and societal benefits of studying the Arts. The leading role of music teachers in embracing technology in learning and making a meaningful connection between the students’ culture and school should be celebrated and shared.
Technology-based music has always been an important topic in all of our music programs and the musical skills and the multiple roles of the contemporary DJ are examples that we study. This topic is one where the “Open” nature of learning and information is evident. The range of music that my students bring to share in these lessons is testament to this, and their ability to “discover” the up and coming names in these genres is testament to their discernment. Certainly my better students are taking advantage of open learning but I sense that this is not as widespread as researchers such as David Price suggest – or perhaps it is that my definition of learning is too narrow. There is a fair degree of online interaction but the emphasis appears to be on the social rather than study, from the evidence available in class.
It also needs to be acknowledged that the “Information Super-highway” is a dangerous place to play. I came across one tutorial last year where the author spent a large percentage of time belittling viewers for even needing to ask for help with what he obviously considered was a simple task.
I think that there are still significant issues that have not been addressed in this MOOC. There is space here only to mention two of these. The first is money. Our storeroom contains the evidence of the pace at which Technology changes: sound modules and midi interfaces that are no longer required, boxes of pre-and post Mac OSX software are just two examples. Even the so-called Open-Source software such as Soundtrap is quick to offer you their Premium package – for a fee of course. The attraction of BYO, BAB and Open Source software is that this cost transfers from the school to the family.
In a recent article on improvements to student outcomes, School smarts push students on path to uni, the identified factors correlate strongly with those of John Hattie: parent involvement, goal setting, environment and the relationship between teacher and student. There is no specific mention of the BLs or any other pedagogical approaches.
I am affirmed by this MOOC in the approaches that I have taken in teaching Music and other subjects using technology and pedagogical approaches such as Problem-Based and Inquiry-Based Learning. I have found Lucy Green’s approach to informal learning one worth investigating and pursuing. I am challenged to be more deliberate in modelling and identifying open learning amongst my students.
The false distinction between vocation, academic and personal interest subjects that has long prevailed has lost sight of the educational as well as the individual and societal benefits of studying the Arts. The leading role of music teachers in embracing technology in learning and making a meaningful connection between the students’ culture and school should be celebrated and shared.
Saturday, January 21, 2017
An ABC of Technology
In the MOOC, Music in the Twenty-First Century Classroom, we have been set a challenge to share our thoughts about the place of media in the music classroom. I think that I would have been happier presenting a list of pros and cons but we have been asked to be creative. I thought of writing a song or a rap but somehow a line such as, "When it comes to synthesizers, midi and technology, I am the very model of modern music pedagogue" is possibly too embarrassing on many levels. Anyway, I hope that the following contains some of my thoughts about technology in an entertaining and creative way. As well as my own thoughts, I've included some comments from speakers featured in the MOOC videos and some other reading that I've done. I've updated this since the original posting.
The ABC of Technology in Education
A is for app., appealing and accurate.
No matter how appealing an app may be, if the content is not accurate it is of no educational value.
B is for brain, baby and behaviour.
Ban all screen time for children under the age of two to prevent poor brain development and disrupted learning behaviour.
C is for creativity, collaboration and critical thinking.
These are three essential twenty-first century skills that are supported by using technology in the music classroom.
D is for digital natives.
Digital natives live in an instant world where technology is the status quo (Prensky, 2001). However, sometimes they forget that they are also explorers and will stare forlornly at the screen wondering where to go next.Cue teacher.
E is for encouragement, enquiry and epistemic games.
Encouragement and enquiry (“Wow, how did you do that?”) are grandmotherly methods that promote perseverance and understanding in digital learners. Epistemic games immerse children in real-life situations and ask them to solve real-world problems.
F is for Flipped Learning
Flipped Learning is no guarantee that homework won’t be boring.
G is for GarageBand.
GarageBand turns bedrooms into studios and classrooms into hit factories. However this is not a guaranteed formula. The real equation is: musician+GarageBand≠guaranteed instant hit. The secret for success remains as mysterious as ever.
H is for Hybrid Learning.
Hybrid or blended learning combines, or blends, classroom and online learning. This is a familiar practice in many schools. It provides for balance.
I is for individualised, informal and idiosyncratic.
Three important pedagogical approaches supported by technology in the music classroom.
J is for JITT (just-in-time technology).
To make better use of limited devices, schools have adapted the industry just-in-time model, preferring to manage limited resources rather than overstock with technology that may not meet their needs (McKenzie, 2003).
K is for know, knowledge and know-how.
Is knowledge obsolete? We no longer need to know, we just need to have the know-how to locate, evaluate and apply the knowledge available online. However, knowledge comes in handy for a dad to beat his daughters in online trivia games.
L is for loops.
Loops are counter-intuitive. Despite the potential to create monotony and homogeny, musical loops seem to be the wellspring for endless variety.
M is for Mobile learning.
Mobile learning means learning where you want and when you want using technology. However, learning in the physical presence of others and hearing an effective speaker live are still powerful modes of learning.
N is network.
Technology allows students and teachers alike to create their own network of peers, mentors and instructors.
O is for Open Source Software
Offering an alternative to proprietary software, Open Source Software builds equity into digital access ahead of equity on the NASDAQ.For the music classroom, these include Soundtrap and Noteflight.
P is for personalised.
Personalised learning offers the opportunity for differentiation and tailoring learning to individual needs. But education is more than an individual pursuit. Emphasising a personalised approach can lose sight of the benefit the community or society also receives.
Q is for questions.
Learning should be about the big questions.
R is for remote
“In nine months, a group of children left alone with a computer in any language, even in a remote Indian village, will reach the same standard as an office secretary in the West.” – Sugata Mitra.
S is for SOLE
Self-organised learning environments combine Broadband, collaboration and encouragement.
T is for teacher.
Technology is no substitute for the relationship between teacher and pupil. What technology does mean is that these roles are continually interchangeable.
U is for unknown.
Much is unknown about the future but technology will have a major role to play in jobs of the future.
V is for virtual.
Virtual manipulation allow learners to play around with ideas, adjust small variables and view or hear the effect.
W is for wonder.
“We need to design a future of learning by supporting children to tap into their wonder and their ability to work together.” – Sugata Mitra
X is for Xavier.
Francis Xavier, Sydney based DJ/Producer/Engineer/Musician/Party promoter/Label owner/Synth hoarder, is testament to the fact that there is more than one way to get into music.
Y is for YouTube.
Forget Wikipedia, YouTube is the “go to” information site for twenty-first century learners in Australia,
Z is for zero.
Technology promises zero boredom in classrooms but there is no guarantee.
References not mentioned in the MOOC
McKenzie, J.(2003, January). Just in time technology. In From Now On: The Educational Technology Journal 12(5), January Retrieved 21/01/2017 from http://fno.org/jan03/jitt.html
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the horizon, 9(5)October. NCB University Press. Retrieved 20/01/2017 from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf
The ABC of Technology in Education
A is for app., appealing and accurate.
No matter how appealing an app may be, if the content is not accurate it is of no educational value.
B is for brain, baby and behaviour.
Ban all screen time for children under the age of two to prevent poor brain development and disrupted learning behaviour.
C is for creativity, collaboration and critical thinking.
These are three essential twenty-first century skills that are supported by using technology in the music classroom.
D is for digital natives.
Digital natives live in an instant world where technology is the status quo (Prensky, 2001). However, sometimes they forget that they are also explorers and will stare forlornly at the screen wondering where to go next.Cue teacher.
E is for encouragement, enquiry and epistemic games.
Encouragement and enquiry (“Wow, how did you do that?”) are grandmotherly methods that promote perseverance and understanding in digital learners. Epistemic games immerse children in real-life situations and ask them to solve real-world problems.
F is for Flipped Learning
Flipped Learning is no guarantee that homework won’t be boring.
G is for GarageBand.
GarageBand turns bedrooms into studios and classrooms into hit factories. However this is not a guaranteed formula. The real equation is: musician+GarageBand≠guaranteed instant hit. The secret for success remains as mysterious as ever.
H is for Hybrid Learning.
Hybrid or blended learning combines, or blends, classroom and online learning. This is a familiar practice in many schools. It provides for balance.
I is for individualised, informal and idiosyncratic.
Three important pedagogical approaches supported by technology in the music classroom.
J is for JITT (just-in-time technology).
To make better use of limited devices, schools have adapted the industry just-in-time model, preferring to manage limited resources rather than overstock with technology that may not meet their needs (McKenzie, 2003).
K is for know, knowledge and know-how.
Is knowledge obsolete? We no longer need to know, we just need to have the know-how to locate, evaluate and apply the knowledge available online. However, knowledge comes in handy for a dad to beat his daughters in online trivia games.
L is for loops.
Loops are counter-intuitive. Despite the potential to create monotony and homogeny, musical loops seem to be the wellspring for endless variety.
M is for Mobile learning.
Mobile learning means learning where you want and when you want using technology. However, learning in the physical presence of others and hearing an effective speaker live are still powerful modes of learning.
N is network.
Technology allows students and teachers alike to create their own network of peers, mentors and instructors.
O is for Open Source Software
Offering an alternative to proprietary software, Open Source Software builds equity into digital access ahead of equity on the NASDAQ.For the music classroom, these include Soundtrap and Noteflight.
P is for personalised.
Personalised learning offers the opportunity for differentiation and tailoring learning to individual needs. But education is more than an individual pursuit. Emphasising a personalised approach can lose sight of the benefit the community or society also receives.
Q is for questions.
Learning should be about the big questions.
R is for remote
“In nine months, a group of children left alone with a computer in any language, even in a remote Indian village, will reach the same standard as an office secretary in the West.” – Sugata Mitra.
S is for SOLE
Self-organised learning environments combine Broadband, collaboration and encouragement.
T is for teacher.
Technology is no substitute for the relationship between teacher and pupil. What technology does mean is that these roles are continually interchangeable.
U is for unknown.
Much is unknown about the future but technology will have a major role to play in jobs of the future.
V is for virtual.
Virtual manipulation allow learners to play around with ideas, adjust small variables and view or hear the effect.
W is for wonder.
“We need to design a future of learning by supporting children to tap into their wonder and their ability to work together.” – Sugata Mitra
X is for Xavier.
Francis Xavier, Sydney based DJ/Producer/Engineer/Musician/Party promoter/Label owner/Synth hoarder, is testament to the fact that there is more than one way to get into music.
Y is for YouTube.
Forget Wikipedia, YouTube is the “go to” information site for twenty-first century learners in Australia,
Z is for zero.
Technology promises zero boredom in classrooms but there is no guarantee.
References not mentioned in the MOOC
McKenzie, J.(2003, January). Just in time technology. In From Now On: The Educational Technology Journal 12(5), January Retrieved 21/01/2017 from http://fno.org/jan03/jitt.html
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the horizon, 9(5)October. NCB University Press. Retrieved 20/01/2017 from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf
Saturday, January 14, 2017
Popular music in the classroom
Popular Music in the Classroom
The programming of popular music in secondary classrooms is not new. However, the MOOC, Music in the Twenty-first Century Classroom presents a research-based approach to the use of popular music to improve the interest and engagement of students in the classroom. But does this mean a total re-writing of the music curriculum?
In the course, Richard Gill presented the useful analogy of a balanced diet when it comes to classroom repertoire. The NSW BOSTES syllabuses provide for such a balance in every stage. It is an important foundation for the wide listening approach that students need to have to succeed in the HSC aural skills exam. The ability to appreciate and learn from a variety of music also promotes deeper musical and cultural understanding.
Popular music has a place in the music curriculum, not just to promote engagement with the musical material but because its interest for the listener derives, in part, from the effective employment of musical concepts. However, even using examples from the students’ own musical culture is not a guarantee of successful learning. As Professor Lucy Green observes, teenagers often focus on the words of their favourite songs and it takes a skilled teacher to introduce students to the techniques and terms that will allow them to identify, analyse and employ the musical features of the repertoire.
It’s also important that the use of repertoire from students' own musical culture is authentic. The music should be recognised for its musical merit, not just seen as a sugar coating for the theory pill or a stepping-stone to the study of “real” music. I think this is entirely in keeping with the philosophy outlined by Richard Gill, as well as the approach advocated by Francis Xavier and Adam Maggs in the course videos and the LiveStudio syllabus. Having the students choose their own music, as suggested by Lucy Green, helps in recognising the authenticity of the music.
My final comment is that a balance of established and new material that represents contemporary culture, is also required to save over-burdening teachers. The present system that requires teachers to document, in detail, every curriculum decision and teaching practice is a disincentive to innovation. Managing the “new” by balancing it with the established curriculum and repertoire makes innovation possible.
The programming of popular music in secondary classrooms is not new. However, the MOOC, Music in the Twenty-first Century Classroom presents a research-based approach to the use of popular music to improve the interest and engagement of students in the classroom. But does this mean a total re-writing of the music curriculum?
In the course, Richard Gill presented the useful analogy of a balanced diet when it comes to classroom repertoire. The NSW BOSTES syllabuses provide for such a balance in every stage. It is an important foundation for the wide listening approach that students need to have to succeed in the HSC aural skills exam. The ability to appreciate and learn from a variety of music also promotes deeper musical and cultural understanding.
Popular music has a place in the music curriculum, not just to promote engagement with the musical material but because its interest for the listener derives, in part, from the effective employment of musical concepts. However, even using examples from the students’ own musical culture is not a guarantee of successful learning. As Professor Lucy Green observes, teenagers often focus on the words of their favourite songs and it takes a skilled teacher to introduce students to the techniques and terms that will allow them to identify, analyse and employ the musical features of the repertoire.
It’s also important that the use of repertoire from students' own musical culture is authentic. The music should be recognised for its musical merit, not just seen as a sugar coating for the theory pill or a stepping-stone to the study of “real” music. I think this is entirely in keeping with the philosophy outlined by Richard Gill, as well as the approach advocated by Francis Xavier and Adam Maggs in the course videos and the LiveStudio syllabus. Having the students choose their own music, as suggested by Lucy Green, helps in recognising the authenticity of the music.
My final comment is that a balance of established and new material that represents contemporary culture, is also required to save over-burdening teachers. The present system that requires teachers to document, in detail, every curriculum decision and teaching practice is a disincentive to innovation. Managing the “new” by balancing it with the established curriculum and repertoire makes innovation possible.
Thursday, December 29, 2016
Technology in the Classroom
Provocation is an appropriate word for the 2014 EduTECH talk by Professor Stephen Heppell(EduTECH talk by Stephen Heppell on teaching technologies on the cusp). Heppell’s closing statement that every child should have a mobile phone, even from the age of five, was born of his observation of the role of technology in the twenty-first century and his own granddaughter’s positive and creative use of the technology. For a person involved in academia, however, it seemed to ignore studies that question the educational effectiveness of technology and highlight the dangers of unsupervised access for children and young people to the Internet.
This article from The Guardian, Could Steiner schools have a point on children, tablets and tech? reports similar findings to that of recent studies of the educational performance of Australian students: 2016 Naplan results show that literacy and numeracy have flatlined
Even Heppell’s example from the music industry of the influence of technology could be questioned. While many musicians have embraced, if not conceded, that digital downloads and YouTube have denied them an income from their recorded music, the live music “experience” in the twenty-first century is also evolving. On one hand, there is the proliferation of devices at concerts. Take the time to observe the growing number of audience members preferring the small screen view to actually soaking in the performance with their own eyes.An adult example of the Childhood at Risk suggested by Steiner-Waldorf education, when the natural learning of children is replaced by technology.
(Source: https://uniquelytoronto.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/i_mother_earth_august_2014-croppped.jpg?w=830)
The importance of live performance to a musician’s income is also increasing pressure on opening hours and the resulting social and medical problems arising from prolonged alcohol consumption.
This is not to dismiss technology all together but its place in education has to be considered and effective. Of more significance for educators than a growing ownership and use of technology is Heppell’s fundamental question, “What makes for good learning?”
In the preface to Music Learning Today (2014), Bauer says something similar. “The decision on whether or not to utilise technology for learning, and the specific techniques that might be best suited for a particular learning context, should begin with a consideration of the curricular outcomes (music subject matter) (William I. Bauer, 2014. Music Learning Today: Digital Pedagogy for Creating, Performing and Responding. New York: Oxford University Press. Preface, page xii)”.
As Steve Collis, Director of Innovation at Northern Beaches Christian School suggested in video one, the use of technology should support learning. That is not to say that learning only takes place within the classroom. Music teachers, perhaps more than other teachers, know that learning about music is about being immersed in the subject matter and inspired and guided by a range of musicians and mentors in a range of contexts away from school. The music classroom is the context in which students can be challenged as creators, performers and audience members to develop reflective and critical thinking skills. Skills which expand their understanding and engagement with a wider world of imagination, cultural identity and the human condition. Experiences that will, in turn, foster the desired twenty-first century attributes of empathy, inventiveness, connection and storytelling, set out by Virginia Moller from Kamaroi Rudolf Steiner school.
Simply supplying the technology is not enough. The role of the teacher in a technology-rich classroom is as a guide and mentor, rather than as a keeper of information, as Natalie See from Hilltop Public School explained. The challenge for teachers is to need to know how to effectively design, support and evaluate the use of technology to maximise learning (Bauer, 2014, p, xi).
This article from The Guardian, Could Steiner schools have a point on children, tablets and tech? reports similar findings to that of recent studies of the educational performance of Australian students: 2016 Naplan results show that literacy and numeracy have flatlined
Even Heppell’s example from the music industry of the influence of technology could be questioned. While many musicians have embraced, if not conceded, that digital downloads and YouTube have denied them an income from their recorded music, the live music “experience” in the twenty-first century is also evolving. On one hand, there is the proliferation of devices at concerts. Take the time to observe the growing number of audience members preferring the small screen view to actually soaking in the performance with their own eyes.An adult example of the Childhood at Risk suggested by Steiner-Waldorf education, when the natural learning of children is replaced by technology.
The importance of live performance to a musician’s income is also increasing pressure on opening hours and the resulting social and medical problems arising from prolonged alcohol consumption.
This is not to dismiss technology all together but its place in education has to be considered and effective. Of more significance for educators than a growing ownership and use of technology is Heppell’s fundamental question, “What makes for good learning?”
In the preface to Music Learning Today (2014), Bauer says something similar. “The decision on whether or not to utilise technology for learning, and the specific techniques that might be best suited for a particular learning context, should begin with a consideration of the curricular outcomes (music subject matter) (William I. Bauer, 2014. Music Learning Today: Digital Pedagogy for Creating, Performing and Responding. New York: Oxford University Press. Preface, page xii)”.
As Steve Collis, Director of Innovation at Northern Beaches Christian School suggested in video one, the use of technology should support learning. That is not to say that learning only takes place within the classroom. Music teachers, perhaps more than other teachers, know that learning about music is about being immersed in the subject matter and inspired and guided by a range of musicians and mentors in a range of contexts away from school. The music classroom is the context in which students can be challenged as creators, performers and audience members to develop reflective and critical thinking skills. Skills which expand their understanding and engagement with a wider world of imagination, cultural identity and the human condition. Experiences that will, in turn, foster the desired twenty-first century attributes of empathy, inventiveness, connection and storytelling, set out by Virginia Moller from Kamaroi Rudolf Steiner school.
Simply supplying the technology is not enough. The role of the teacher in a technology-rich classroom is as a guide and mentor, rather than as a keeper of information, as Natalie See from Hilltop Public School explained. The challenge for teachers is to need to know how to effectively design, support and evaluate the use of technology to maximise learning (Bauer, 2014, p, xi).
Friday, December 23, 2016
The Place of Music in Twenty-first Century Education
I have just begun a MOOC designed by Dr James Humberstone from the Sydney Con. which looks at the place of technology in music education. I am learning a lot that is relevant to both of my present school roles. It's important to draw out, from examples such as Northern Beaches Christian School, principles and pedagogical approaches that can be applied even when your school infrastructure and funding doesn't run to multiple JamHub studios and 1:1 devices.
What I have seen so far is the implementation of principles and practices set out in more general texts on technology in education, such as, Leading a digital school, Edited by Mal Lee and Michael Gaffney, and obviously the texts cited by Dr Humberstone, such as Music Technology and Education: Amplifying Musicality by Andrew Brown. I am also learning new terminology for old practices such as "setting the benchmarks for productivity and creativity". I'll leave you to work out what that means.
I know that may sound as if I don't think I have much to learn and that is far from the case. I have great admiration for Stephen Harris, the principal at NBCS, with whom I used to work. He has set a benchmark for educational innovation, especially the use of technology, but also in other areas related to learning, some of which have been covered in the opening videos. I am pleased to see what Brad Fuller and Peter Orenstein have done with the opportunities given to them and, so far, satisfied that I am moving - though somewhat more gradually - along the same trajectory regarding the use of technology. It is as important to be affirmed in what you are doing as it is to be challenged to be innovative in the way we meet students' needs.
What I do look forward to discovering, is ways to move into the Re-definition level of the SAMR model. So far, I would argue, the examples shown are really only replacing or augmenting older practices and experiences with technological substitutes. You might have other opinions.
(Image from Cathy Shrock's Guide to Everything)
If the SAMR model is new to you, then you might like to find out more about it here:
SAMR and Twenty-first century learning
In the meantime, I thought that I might brazenly take this opportunity to share something of my own work. This is a link to information about a teaching kit for the Song Cycle, Compassion by Lior and Nigel Westlake.Below is a link to one of many YouTube clips of movements from Compassion.
Compassion Teaching Kit
What I have seen so far is the implementation of principles and practices set out in more general texts on technology in education, such as, Leading a digital school, Edited by Mal Lee and Michael Gaffney, and obviously the texts cited by Dr Humberstone, such as Music Technology and Education: Amplifying Musicality by Andrew Brown. I am also learning new terminology for old practices such as "setting the benchmarks for productivity and creativity". I'll leave you to work out what that means.
I know that may sound as if I don't think I have much to learn and that is far from the case. I have great admiration for Stephen Harris, the principal at NBCS, with whom I used to work. He has set a benchmark for educational innovation, especially the use of technology, but also in other areas related to learning, some of which have been covered in the opening videos. I am pleased to see what Brad Fuller and Peter Orenstein have done with the opportunities given to them and, so far, satisfied that I am moving - though somewhat more gradually - along the same trajectory regarding the use of technology. It is as important to be affirmed in what you are doing as it is to be challenged to be innovative in the way we meet students' needs.
What I do look forward to discovering, is ways to move into the Re-definition level of the SAMR model. So far, I would argue, the examples shown are really only replacing or augmenting older practices and experiences with technological substitutes. You might have other opinions.
If the SAMR model is new to you, then you might like to find out more about it here:
SAMR and Twenty-first century learning
In the meantime, I thought that I might brazenly take this opportunity to share something of my own work. This is a link to information about a teaching kit for the Song Cycle, Compassion by Lior and Nigel Westlake.Below is a link to one of many YouTube clips of movements from Compassion.
Compassion Teaching Kit
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Teaching ICT
This year I've been putting my ETL323 skill into practice teaching ICT to a 4/5 class. I began by using the Cybersafety course from Google. http://www.google.com/educators/digitalliteracy.html
I found the set-up of the activities better than ACMA Cybersmart. The Google videos, for example, go very quickly but the students do catch on. This works better than the text dialogue boxes on the ACMA site (which have a sound version, which gets very noisy).
However, when the videos stop on YouTube a page comes up which includes some less-than-helpful images that are almost examples of the very things the video has said to avoid. I shall be contacting Google or YouTube (who host the videos) about this. The Google site has presenter aids (images and text) and workbooks. In the end, I took bits and pieces from these that would work with my age group and left out the sections which were for older learners.
I did use the Cybersmart Quiz at the end and issued the successful students with a Cybersafety licence and a letter that reminds of the consequences of breaching the guidelines that they have learnt.
This term, I'm using ideas from the Student Blog Challenge to use with the students setting up their own blogs through kidsblog.
http://studentchallenge.edublogs.org
In future I would finish Cybersafety earlier and enrol my group into the March session of the challenge.
I found the set-up of the activities better than ACMA Cybersmart. The Google videos, for example, go very quickly but the students do catch on. This works better than the text dialogue boxes on the ACMA site (which have a sound version, which gets very noisy).
However, when the videos stop on YouTube a page comes up which includes some less-than-helpful images that are almost examples of the very things the video has said to avoid. I shall be contacting Google or YouTube (who host the videos) about this. The Google site has presenter aids (images and text) and workbooks. In the end, I took bits and pieces from these that would work with my age group and left out the sections which were for older learners.
I did use the Cybersmart Quiz at the end and issued the successful students with a Cybersafety licence and a letter that reminds of the consequences of breaching the guidelines that they have learnt.
This term, I'm using ideas from the Student Blog Challenge to use with the students setting up their own blogs through kidsblog.
http://studentchallenge.edublogs.org
In future I would finish Cybersafety earlier and enrol my group into the March session of the challenge.
Monday, June 13, 2011
ETL 523 Assignment 2
It is always my aim with these posts to assist those who will do these assignments by sharing the shortcomings of my own. The following is written by the lecturer, Judy O'Connell to all the students in the course. It addresses an aspect of the assignment that I know I have not completed well. I suspected that my search strategies were weak, as I used many resources that came via the Diigo lists to which I subscribe. Sadly, this was an even more important part of the assignment than I realised. I also included a Ted Talk and a blog entry, both by high-profile commentators on social media in education, thinking that variety of media would be a plus. The feedback was that these were not academic enough resources.
Here are Judy's comments:
This assignment was very different from Assignment 1, and required a different set of skills, plus greater research, analysis and synthesis in each of the parts.
Part C required clear identification of your search strategies, beyond just the keywords you used in Google, search engines, or other sources. All students needed to use a range of sources, especially the CSU databases. This is the best resource to demonstrate that you know the difference between keyword, subjects, descriptors. While you may have felt that you had enough information, and wanted to 'get on ' with writing your paper, the point of this is to be sure that you know how to undertake 'thorough' searching. As an information professional you cannot assume that you have enough until you have search every option. A better resource maybe at the end of your next search string!!
Some students did this well, and some students didn't demonstrate good use of CSU databases or similar resources at all. In all that searching for preparation for your assignment, you also needed to keep your eye on the local, national and international scene - they are all important in development of information policy. This meant finding and referring to key information reports, research, or relevant policies. This assignment rarely justified the inclusion of informal sources, such as newspaper articles or blog posts, as it was an Information Policy assignment - which is formal and relies on authoritative sources. If your Annotated Bibliography had many of these sources then it was not satisfactory.
It was interesting to see how many students made use of Google Scholar. This is useful, and particularly useful if you have connected your access to Google Scholar to the National Library and the CSU databases, as well as to any other sources that you may have access to. If you don't know anything about how to connect Google Scholar to databases then visit http://scholar.google.com/scholar_preferences
In addition, you should remember that CSU also has another search point at Search@CSU which you will find on the home page of the library.
Some students simply indicated that they searched in Google. At the very least you should have indicated how you used Advanced search strategies e.g. narrowing by date range.
In future be very much more specific about the details of your search processes.
In developing a policy for a school remember to be mindful of the fact that you are dealing with a learning and teaching environment .i.e. policy can be formative as well as regulatory. Be aware that you can provide a positive focus to support and enhance curriculum programs and school projects. Also, remember that a policy is available for students, teachers and family. Sometimes words may be included that require definition within the policy or in a glossary. As a formal document it needs to be clear, succinct, and accessible to all.
Here are Judy's comments:
This assignment was very different from Assignment 1, and required a different set of skills, plus greater research, analysis and synthesis in each of the parts.
Part C required clear identification of your search strategies, beyond just the keywords you used in Google, search engines, or other sources. All students needed to use a range of sources, especially the CSU databases. This is the best resource to demonstrate that you know the difference between keyword, subjects, descriptors. While you may have felt that you had enough information, and wanted to 'get on ' with writing your paper, the point of this is to be sure that you know how to undertake 'thorough' searching. As an information professional you cannot assume that you have enough until you have search every option. A better resource maybe at the end of your next search string!!
Some students did this well, and some students didn't demonstrate good use of CSU databases or similar resources at all. In all that searching for preparation for your assignment, you also needed to keep your eye on the local, national and international scene - they are all important in development of information policy. This meant finding and referring to key information reports, research, or relevant policies. This assignment rarely justified the inclusion of informal sources, such as newspaper articles or blog posts, as it was an Information Policy assignment - which is formal and relies on authoritative sources. If your Annotated Bibliography had many of these sources then it was not satisfactory.
It was interesting to see how many students made use of Google Scholar. This is useful, and particularly useful if you have connected your access to Google Scholar to the National Library and the CSU databases, as well as to any other sources that you may have access to. If you don't know anything about how to connect Google Scholar to databases then visit http://scholar.google.com/scholar_preferences
In addition, you should remember that CSU also has another search point at Search@CSU which you will find on the home page of the library.
Some students simply indicated that they searched in Google. At the very least you should have indicated how you used Advanced search strategies e.g. narrowing by date range.
In future be very much more specific about the details of your search processes.
In developing a policy for a school remember to be mindful of the fact that you are dealing with a learning and teaching environment .i.e. policy can be formative as well as regulatory. Be aware that you can provide a positive focus to support and enhance curriculum programs and school projects. Also, remember that a policy is available for students, teachers and family. Sometimes words may be included that require definition within the policy or in a glossary. As a formal document it needs to be clear, succinct, and accessible to all.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Freedom of Information and the Civil Society ETL 523
As I read in Schauder’s paper about the civil society and the role that libraries play in the free flow of information and ideas I had a number of responses (Schauder, D. (2006). Libraries, ICT policy, and Australian civil society: isues and prospects from national consultations. Paper presented at the VALA 2006: Connecting with users. 13th biennial conference and exhibition 8-10 February 2006 Crown Towers, Melbourne, Australia. Conference proceedings. Retrieved from
http://www.valaconf.org.au/vala2006/papers2006/50 Schauder Final.pdf.
The civil society is certainly to be promoted and the role of libraries in the process needs to be recognised and encouraged. The notion of e-democracy, where citizens are able to vote on any and every issue is both one of Athenian utopianism and science fiction intrigue. The male Athenians could indulge in this practice because they had slaves and the female members of their households to attend to their other affairs. Science fiction and speculative fiction (including Dennis Potter’s Cold Lazarus) have highlighted the danger of instant populist democracy. We see glimpses of this already in the number of polls conducted on subjects as diverse as cricket, cars and politics.
The opening of the “Charter for Knowledge Societies” of the IAMCR could be read as a manifesto for Wikileaks. Does that make free access to information a positive or a negative principle to pursue? What are the implications for privacy? Why are the “conversations” of political leaders more in the public interest to disclose interesting than those of industrial leaders, who arguably have more influence on our lives? Is it because, as Browne (Browne, M. 1997, “The field of information policy: 1. Fundamental concepts”, Journal of information science, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 261-275) suggests governments continue to operate with a plethora of overlapping and disorganized policies, while companies and corporations have managed to have their interests protected by copyright and other laws. The recent iinet case in Australia ¬– as with the French (p. 62) and American (p. 68) cases referred to by Dearnley and Feather (2001. Information policy. In The wired world: an introduction to the theory and practice of the information society (pp. 60-93). London: Library Association) – demonstrates that these large companies may have met their match in the world wide web. Or is it because Freedom of Information has created the “right to know” and the technology has created an immediacy of access (legal or illegal) to such a vast amount of information that governments aren’t yet sure of the security implications of the information and certainly don’t have the time to assess it all. Given what Dearnley and Feather (2001, p. 67) say about freedom of information legislation in the USA, one wonders how that government can make the threats that is has allegedly made about the actions of Wikileaks.
The third point is that leaving the provision of knowledge “to the market” can lead to a continuing or new digital divide. This is part of the political debate in Australia at the moment over broadband.
The implication is that libraries have a significant role to play in providing access to a range of information that promotes the public good through the seeking and imparting of information. Libraries will no longer just be repositories or terminals of information, they will be the place where information is generated and from which it is disseminated. They also have an important role to play in the monitoring, critiquing and advocating of information.
http://www.valaconf.org.au/vala2006/papers2006/50 Schauder Final.pdf.
The civil society is certainly to be promoted and the role of libraries in the process needs to be recognised and encouraged. The notion of e-democracy, where citizens are able to vote on any and every issue is both one of Athenian utopianism and science fiction intrigue. The male Athenians could indulge in this practice because they had slaves and the female members of their households to attend to their other affairs. Science fiction and speculative fiction (including Dennis Potter’s Cold Lazarus) have highlighted the danger of instant populist democracy. We see glimpses of this already in the number of polls conducted on subjects as diverse as cricket, cars and politics.
The opening of the “Charter for Knowledge Societies” of the IAMCR could be read as a manifesto for Wikileaks. Does that make free access to information a positive or a negative principle to pursue? What are the implications for privacy? Why are the “conversations” of political leaders more in the public interest to disclose interesting than those of industrial leaders, who arguably have more influence on our lives? Is it because, as Browne (Browne, M. 1997, “The field of information policy: 1. Fundamental concepts”, Journal of information science, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 261-275) suggests governments continue to operate with a plethora of overlapping and disorganized policies, while companies and corporations have managed to have their interests protected by copyright and other laws. The recent iinet case in Australia ¬– as with the French (p. 62) and American (p. 68) cases referred to by Dearnley and Feather (2001. Information policy. In The wired world: an introduction to the theory and practice of the information society (pp. 60-93). London: Library Association) – demonstrates that these large companies may have met their match in the world wide web. Or is it because Freedom of Information has created the “right to know” and the technology has created an immediacy of access (legal or illegal) to such a vast amount of information that governments aren’t yet sure of the security implications of the information and certainly don’t have the time to assess it all. Given what Dearnley and Feather (2001, p. 67) say about freedom of information legislation in the USA, one wonders how that government can make the threats that is has allegedly made about the actions of Wikileaks.
The third point is that leaving the provision of knowledge “to the market” can lead to a continuing or new digital divide. This is part of the political debate in Australia at the moment over broadband.
The implication is that libraries have a significant role to play in providing access to a range of information that promotes the public good through the seeking and imparting of information. Libraries will no longer just be repositories or terminals of information, they will be the place where information is generated and from which it is disseminated. They also have an important role to play in the monitoring, critiquing and advocating of information.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Will Richardson
Will Richardson
Change Agent
Published Online: October 11, 2010
Published in Print: October 12, 2010, as Change Agent
http://www.edweek.org/tsb/articles/2010/10/12/01richardson.h04.html?cmp=clp-edweek
I found Will Richardson’s interview very challenging. I have, as I said above, used digital technology as a tool. I have eschewed social networking for employment and philosophical reasons and I have only a small and disorganized online profile. This is because most of my writing continues to be aimed at the print medium. My blog is largely anonymous and concerned with University studies.
I can see Richardson’s point but I need to ask how one fits in creating this online presence and joining learning or professional networks with the expanding demands that digital communications have placed upon our time.
I find it very frustrating that I cannot find suitable resources on the web for different ages and subjects that I teach or support but by the time I have exhausted that search I don’t feel that I have the time to create what is required. Even with Moodle these tend to end up “works-in-progress” rather than finished products.
I also see that Richardson supports teaching hypertext. There was a time when it was suggested that all students should learn a computer language as their second language, just as there was (and in some places, continues to be) an insistence on students learning or attempting to learn touch typing. Just as knowing Basic, Pascal and even machine language is no longer central to being able to use a computer, I wonder whether hypertext will also become superfluous to the effective use of computers for creative purposes.
Apart from universal applications such as email, desktop publishing, marking spreadsheets and school databases, teachers are most likely to become competent if nor masters at specialist software related to their domain: art, photography, CAD, music and so on. Such programs provide web accessibility, which makes them useful for students to share, compare and evaluate the work of others and, in turn, to display their own work. However, their main working environment is based on individual machines.
Finally, schools face or have created their own series of obstacles to e-learning, as any teacher who has tried to log on a Year 3 or 4 class to the school intranet, let alone allow them access to the wide world of the internet knows that we are a long way from reproducing the social experience of Web 2.0 outside school or making digital learning a seamless part of the school day.
Change Agent
Published Online: October 11, 2010
Published in Print: October 12, 2010, as Change Agent
http://www.edweek.org/tsb/articles/2010/10/12/01richardson.h04.html?cmp=clp-edweek
I found Will Richardson’s interview very challenging. I have, as I said above, used digital technology as a tool. I have eschewed social networking for employment and philosophical reasons and I have only a small and disorganized online profile. This is because most of my writing continues to be aimed at the print medium. My blog is largely anonymous and concerned with University studies.
I can see Richardson’s point but I need to ask how one fits in creating this online presence and joining learning or professional networks with the expanding demands that digital communications have placed upon our time.
I find it very frustrating that I cannot find suitable resources on the web for different ages and subjects that I teach or support but by the time I have exhausted that search I don’t feel that I have the time to create what is required. Even with Moodle these tend to end up “works-in-progress” rather than finished products.
I also see that Richardson supports teaching hypertext. There was a time when it was suggested that all students should learn a computer language as their second language, just as there was (and in some places, continues to be) an insistence on students learning or attempting to learn touch typing. Just as knowing Basic, Pascal and even machine language is no longer central to being able to use a computer, I wonder whether hypertext will also become superfluous to the effective use of computers for creative purposes.
Apart from universal applications such as email, desktop publishing, marking spreadsheets and school databases, teachers are most likely to become competent if nor masters at specialist software related to their domain: art, photography, CAD, music and so on. Such programs provide web accessibility, which makes them useful for students to share, compare and evaluate the work of others and, in turn, to display their own work. However, their main working environment is based on individual machines.
Finally, schools face or have created their own series of obstacles to e-learning, as any teacher who has tried to log on a Year 3 or 4 class to the school intranet, let alone allow them access to the wide world of the internet knows that we are a long way from reproducing the social experience of Web 2.0 outside school or making digital learning a seamless part of the school day.
Web 2.0
Roll on the NBN. I’ve just viewed the YouTube clip Web 2.0 The Machine is Us/ing Us, which stopped to reload every fifteen to thirty seconds or so. I was a bit overwhelmed by the html xml section, concerned that I may have to know these terms. Then I realized that the message was exactly the opposite. Now, I don’t need to know a programming language to create with a computer. It’s a bit like the old Word .rtf versus .doc or even the difference between DOS and the Mac GUI interface. As Apple said in their Macintosh ads at the time, the PC had been sent to school to think like a human. No special accolades for Apple here. They have long bought, borrowed or stolen some of the best ideas and marketed them effectively. However, there is an interesting corollary in Web 2.0, which I learnt from the clip. It is that, indeed, computers are learning from us and from the links we forge between different material.
I also appreciated the reminder that Web 2.0 isn’t just about blogs and wikis. Using Diigo to prepare, annotate and share web pages for my students is Web 2.0 in practice. I have always thought of the computer as a tool rather than a recreation source or a form of social media. If it allows me to do something more efficiently, effectively, or both, then it is worth using. If it adds time to a task or requires more understanding on my part or that of my students then it is possibly not the better alternative. This may just have to do with my limited knowledge, my age, learning style or possibly the limited time I have to play around with things and the capacity of the web to use up all the time that you can give it.
I also appreciated the reminder that Web 2.0 isn’t just about blogs and wikis. Using Diigo to prepare, annotate and share web pages for my students is Web 2.0 in practice. I have always thought of the computer as a tool rather than a recreation source or a form of social media. If it allows me to do something more efficiently, effectively, or both, then it is worth using. If it adds time to a task or requires more understanding on my part or that of my students then it is possibly not the better alternative. This may just have to do with my limited knowledge, my age, learning style or possibly the limited time I have to play around with things and the capacity of the web to use up all the time that you can give it.
Schools as Organisations
The school as an organisation
I’ve been thinking about how organisational theory might help to explain and address possible sources of disagreement and conflict within a school.
While a school may use many terms to describe its set of relationships, it is an organisation – a system of relationships and influences that combine to create structures and networks. The school effectiveness movement sees schools as examples of a rational open systems model. This makes it easy to view the educational process as one of value adding to the raw material of the input. This value-added aspect is what MySchool and the resultant league tables are concerned with. This approach emphasizes formalized social structure and relatively specific goals as well as the effective use of resources and the structural interrelationship of parts of the organisation (Bennett, 2001, p.99).
This type of organisation emphasises detailed job specifications, uniform procedures and consistency. Job descriptions define the lines of accountability and control that govern the work. These descriptions are important to the structuring of work in the organisation. These structures are fixed and only change as the result of specific decisions by those who control them. Those in management are overseers. Two relevant elements of this type of system are:
1) management has a responsibility to reduce the impact of change and upheaval so that they do not interfere with the basic task of the organisation’s members
2) each part of the organisation needs to be kept informed of things that are happening elsewhere that might affect its work.
For example, the management team may try to shelter their staff from the turbulence of issues such as changing enrolment numbers, the effects of the GFC, Naplan and MySchool, while keeping them as informed as was deemed appropriate. However, being informed is not the same as being consulted. The school executive may effectively use “deep coping” strategies such as re-staffing, restructuring and redesigning roles to deal with many of the changes. While some structural changes and new initiatives are introduced with a deliberate process of consultation, other learning programs associated with the structural changes may be altered without mutually agreed plans and no parameters for evaluation.
By comparison, organic views of the school organisation see them as being made up of members rather than tasks and therefore capable of developing a life of their own (Bennett, 2001, p. 100). In this view, the organisation is viewed as having the ability to adapt and grow as needs arise, without having to be changed by management decision.
In my view, the problem with schools is that the class teachers see themselves as part of an organic system, while the structures within which they operate and the expectations placed upon them are more mechanistic. One promotes a relational and nurturing approach, the other focuses on accountability and measurable outcomes. One sees the members as being able to devise and implement solutions to problems (using their skills, training and experience), the other sees management as the source of solutions.
In reality, a person’s place in the organisation defines their role and sphere of influence. Their significance is defined by their relationships with colleagues and the areas in which they are able to make decisions. In this regard, the members of the organisation are not equals. This inequality is an expression of the power that may be exercised by members. This power depends on two things. Firstly, the importance of the individual to the issue under consideration and the decision that has to be made. Secondly, the amount of individual discretion or freedom to act in response to decisions. Further, the power disparity between individuals is a major influence in shaping and defining the way that relationships develop within the organisation.
This power disparity leads non-managers to dismiss the legitimacy of some sources of power such as economic power (or power of dismissal). It may also determine whether a response to change is merely compliance and not full commitment. This is significant in the life of an organisation. Staff willingness and staff initiative has been identified as a factor that leads to successful implementation of change. This has been demonstrated to contribute to school improvement or school effectiveness or teacher effectiveness.
Power sharing is critical to securing staff willingness and initiative and crucial to stabilizing the change after implementation. In the effective schools scenario “the staff is given a considerable amount of responsibility and authority in determining the exact means by which they address the problem of increasing academic performance. This includes giving staffs more authority over curricular and instructional decisions and allocation of building resources” (Purkey and Smith, 1985, p. 358). However, empowerment tends to occur after the major decisions are made a rather than before.
One suggestion to promote stability and empowerment is the Collaborative School Management Cycle (Caldwell and Spinks, 1988). In this the policy group (principal, senior staff and Board) form the policy group, while teachers create programs to support the school activities associated with learning and teaching. The policy group is responsible for goal setting, needs identification, policy making, budgeting and evaluation programs. The program group takes responsibility for planning, budgeting, implementing and evaluating. With contentious issues, where there is disagreement on current practice among staff, it is recommended that a working party be appointed to prepare options for consideration by the policy group.
However, in the case of a disputed hypothetical program the policy group may dictate to the program group how a particular learning program will be designed and implemented. The withdrawal of discretion or authority from the program group by the policy group (teaching staff) may lead to resentment. The exercise of power by the policy group to ensure compliance and stifle debate may lead to feelings of impotence and devaluation. This power imbalance has the potential to weaken initiative and sustain instability. This works against the principle that “the potential of an organisation is realized through its people’s enthusiasm resourcefulness and participation” (Streeton Primary School, 2000).
References
Bennett, N. 2001, Power, structure and culture: an organisational view of school effectiveness and school improvement. In Harris, A. & Bennett, N. (eds) School effectiveness and school improvement: alternate perspectives. Continuum: London, pp. 89-122
Caldwell, B. J. and Spinks, J. M. 1988. The Self-Managing School. London: Falmer Press.
Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1985). School reform: The district policy implications of the effective schools literature. Elementary School Journal, 85(3), pp. 353-389.
Streeton Primary School. 2000, The 12 quality principles. In Q is for quality: continuous improvement in schools through quality management and quality learning (pp. 12-24). Yallambie, Vic.: Streeton Primary School.
I’ve been thinking about how organisational theory might help to explain and address possible sources of disagreement and conflict within a school.
While a school may use many terms to describe its set of relationships, it is an organisation – a system of relationships and influences that combine to create structures and networks. The school effectiveness movement sees schools as examples of a rational open systems model. This makes it easy to view the educational process as one of value adding to the raw material of the input. This value-added aspect is what MySchool and the resultant league tables are concerned with. This approach emphasizes formalized social structure and relatively specific goals as well as the effective use of resources and the structural interrelationship of parts of the organisation (Bennett, 2001, p.99).
This type of organisation emphasises detailed job specifications, uniform procedures and consistency. Job descriptions define the lines of accountability and control that govern the work. These descriptions are important to the structuring of work in the organisation. These structures are fixed and only change as the result of specific decisions by those who control them. Those in management are overseers. Two relevant elements of this type of system are:
1) management has a responsibility to reduce the impact of change and upheaval so that they do not interfere with the basic task of the organisation’s members
2) each part of the organisation needs to be kept informed of things that are happening elsewhere that might affect its work.
For example, the management team may try to shelter their staff from the turbulence of issues such as changing enrolment numbers, the effects of the GFC, Naplan and MySchool, while keeping them as informed as was deemed appropriate. However, being informed is not the same as being consulted. The school executive may effectively use “deep coping” strategies such as re-staffing, restructuring and redesigning roles to deal with many of the changes. While some structural changes and new initiatives are introduced with a deliberate process of consultation, other learning programs associated with the structural changes may be altered without mutually agreed plans and no parameters for evaluation.
By comparison, organic views of the school organisation see them as being made up of members rather than tasks and therefore capable of developing a life of their own (Bennett, 2001, p. 100). In this view, the organisation is viewed as having the ability to adapt and grow as needs arise, without having to be changed by management decision.
In my view, the problem with schools is that the class teachers see themselves as part of an organic system, while the structures within which they operate and the expectations placed upon them are more mechanistic. One promotes a relational and nurturing approach, the other focuses on accountability and measurable outcomes. One sees the members as being able to devise and implement solutions to problems (using their skills, training and experience), the other sees management as the source of solutions.
In reality, a person’s place in the organisation defines their role and sphere of influence. Their significance is defined by their relationships with colleagues and the areas in which they are able to make decisions. In this regard, the members of the organisation are not equals. This inequality is an expression of the power that may be exercised by members. This power depends on two things. Firstly, the importance of the individual to the issue under consideration and the decision that has to be made. Secondly, the amount of individual discretion or freedom to act in response to decisions. Further, the power disparity between individuals is a major influence in shaping and defining the way that relationships develop within the organisation.
This power disparity leads non-managers to dismiss the legitimacy of some sources of power such as economic power (or power of dismissal). It may also determine whether a response to change is merely compliance and not full commitment. This is significant in the life of an organisation. Staff willingness and staff initiative has been identified as a factor that leads to successful implementation of change. This has been demonstrated to contribute to school improvement or school effectiveness or teacher effectiveness.
Power sharing is critical to securing staff willingness and initiative and crucial to stabilizing the change after implementation. In the effective schools scenario “the staff is given a considerable amount of responsibility and authority in determining the exact means by which they address the problem of increasing academic performance. This includes giving staffs more authority over curricular and instructional decisions and allocation of building resources” (Purkey and Smith, 1985, p. 358). However, empowerment tends to occur after the major decisions are made a rather than before.
One suggestion to promote stability and empowerment is the Collaborative School Management Cycle (Caldwell and Spinks, 1988). In this the policy group (principal, senior staff and Board) form the policy group, while teachers create programs to support the school activities associated with learning and teaching. The policy group is responsible for goal setting, needs identification, policy making, budgeting and evaluation programs. The program group takes responsibility for planning, budgeting, implementing and evaluating. With contentious issues, where there is disagreement on current practice among staff, it is recommended that a working party be appointed to prepare options for consideration by the policy group.
However, in the case of a disputed hypothetical program the policy group may dictate to the program group how a particular learning program will be designed and implemented. The withdrawal of discretion or authority from the program group by the policy group (teaching staff) may lead to resentment. The exercise of power by the policy group to ensure compliance and stifle debate may lead to feelings of impotence and devaluation. This power imbalance has the potential to weaken initiative and sustain instability. This works against the principle that “the potential of an organisation is realized through its people’s enthusiasm resourcefulness and participation” (Streeton Primary School, 2000).
References
Bennett, N. 2001, Power, structure and culture: an organisational view of school effectiveness and school improvement. In Harris, A. & Bennett, N. (eds) School effectiveness and school improvement: alternate perspectives. Continuum: London, pp. 89-122
Caldwell, B. J. and Spinks, J. M. 1988. The Self-Managing School. London: Falmer Press.
Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1985). School reform: The district policy implications of the effective schools literature. Elementary School Journal, 85(3), pp. 353-389.
Streeton Primary School. 2000, The 12 quality principles. In Q is for quality: continuous improvement in schools through quality management and quality learning (pp. 12-24). Yallambie, Vic.: Streeton Primary School.
Monday, November 15, 2010
David Putnam: Information Literacy The Key to Learning
This is quote from David Putman, Academy Award-winning film producer of movies such as Midnight Express, Chariots of Fire, The Killing Fields and The Mission, who is now now a member of the British House of Lords and advocate for educational change.
In an interview on ABC's Latline on Monday November 15th, 2010, David Putman said, "The most important thing I think teachers can do for young people is to make them inquiring, is to ensure that they know how to gather information, that they check information and they take their information from a multiplicity of sources.
If you can get a child to do that and then become interested in the whole process of information gathering, you're halfway towards becoming a learner. And once you're a learner, you're a learner for life. That's certainly been my experience."
What a great description of the nature and effect of information literacy.
He went on to say, "I think that children are getting better and better at gathering information. The problem is that for people of my age and indeed a good deal younger, we get kind of disturbed by the way in which children gather information. And I think it's us, it's my generation and teachers of my generation or in their 40s, 50s, 60s who have got to in a way close that gap with kids, because if kids begin to think - young people begin to think that education has nothing to do with the way their lives are and the way in which they live their lives, they will blame education; they won't blame themselves; they'll blame education.
And my greatest single fear for education is there's a kind of gap that's growing between the way that young people see themselves and the way in which they kind of learn and the way that teachers would like to teach.
Teachers have got to find a way of closing that gap and of meeting young people halfway in terms of using the tools that they use and using the language indeed that they use. We can't, I don't think, sit in some ivory tower and expect young people to come to us. That's just not gonna happen. We must find a way of meeting them halfway."
Read the complete transcript or watch the video at: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s3067187.htm
In an interview on ABC's Latline on Monday November 15th, 2010, David Putman said, "The most important thing I think teachers can do for young people is to make them inquiring, is to ensure that they know how to gather information, that they check information and they take their information from a multiplicity of sources.
If you can get a child to do that and then become interested in the whole process of information gathering, you're halfway towards becoming a learner. And once you're a learner, you're a learner for life. That's certainly been my experience."
What a great description of the nature and effect of information literacy.
He went on to say, "I think that children are getting better and better at gathering information. The problem is that for people of my age and indeed a good deal younger, we get kind of disturbed by the way in which children gather information. And I think it's us, it's my generation and teachers of my generation or in their 40s, 50s, 60s who have got to in a way close that gap with kids, because if kids begin to think - young people begin to think that education has nothing to do with the way their lives are and the way in which they live their lives, they will blame education; they won't blame themselves; they'll blame education.
And my greatest single fear for education is there's a kind of gap that's growing between the way that young people see themselves and the way in which they kind of learn and the way that teachers would like to teach.
Teachers have got to find a way of closing that gap and of meeting young people halfway in terms of using the tools that they use and using the language indeed that they use. We can't, I don't think, sit in some ivory tower and expect young people to come to us. That's just not gonna happen. We must find a way of meeting them halfway."
Read the complete transcript or watch the video at: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s3067187.htm
Thursday, October 28, 2010
ETL 501 Assignment 2 Feedback
Here is a summary of the marker's comments and some observations from me about Assignment 2. I achieved what I would describe as a respectable pass. I did better with Assignment 1, for those interested. This was marked by James Herring, so it may prove a good guide. I have no quibble with James' comments or marks and I am not seeking to justify my work (however it might seem), but to both reflect on the feedback and provide assistance for others who are yet to undertake this course and assignment.
Before I relate some specific shortcomings, it appears that I made two major mistakes.
In the Pathfinder itself, my annotations had too much information ABOUT the resource and not enough information about how to use them. I don't know that I recall that being clearly explained as the role of the annotations. It may well have been in a podcast or a reading that I missed (there were one or two that I couldn't get to via CSU library) but I felt that my annotations followed the prescriptions given by Lamb and Johnson. The annotations should have included IL directions. I included these in the front page of the Pathfinder as part of a scaffold based on an IL model.
In the critical analysis of what was learned from the process of constructing the pathfinder, I failed to analyse my learning and research process. I thought that the Pathfinder was the evidence of my learning and research and (as you can't refer to yourself) referred to aspects of the Pathfinder and analysed them as examples of my learning.
So the lesson is, from the first time you start experimenting with the search engine, keep a record of what you do, good and bad, and include an analysis of this in the assignment. For me, searching for websites is an automatic skill that I have been developing for some time. I had selected the resources and put the Pathfinder together well before I began the analysis and found it hard to recall the detail of the process apart from one or two highlights.
The difficulty was containing the resources to the specified 15. I think that I'm pretty good at that but I also know that it takes a long time – even longer now that the course has introduced me to so many new search engines. I have learnt some new things such as how to have quick access to most of these search engines through the search box in my web browser toolbar. Should I have included that?
Anyway, some specifics.
1. I didn't reference the class for which I designed the Pathfinder. I named it by NSW Stage and described the make-up of the class. I'm not sure what it means to reference the class. It would be worth finding out.
2. I failed to establish the learning needs. I didn't refer to outcomes but I did specify the topic, type of task and assessment and needs such as "choice" and "access to primary sources".
3. I didn't compare the search engines. In fact I did include some detailed observations about the strengths and weaknesses of the search engines and them took them out to keep under the word limit.
4. I thought that the aim was to evaluate the websites for their usefulness for the students, but I should have evaluated my search strategy and use of the web evaluation criteria from Assignment 1. (It makes so much sense when I write it now). Except that James says, less on source evaluation and more about my search strategy.
5. One of the times that I did discuss something new that I had learned doing this task, I talked about using Advanced Google to locate copy-right free images (they're referred to as reusable images). I explained what I had learned about the importance of eye candy for teenagers. James said that this was discussing the pathfinder, not my learning.
6. I included a quote from Johnson and Lamb about what annotations should do. It didn't include IL. James thought that I should have included this. Once again, I shared what I had learned from Johnson and Lamb but this wasn't seen as my learning.
7. James said that I needed to include references on searching and search engines.
Finally, as always, a reference list that might prove useful.
References
Australian Schools Library Association. (2004). Standards of professional excellence for teacher librarians. Retrieved from: http://www.asla.org.au/policy/standards.htm
Schools Library Association of South Australia. (2008). http://www.slasa.asn.au/Advocacy/rolestatement.html
Brown, C.A. (2008). Building Rubrics: A step-by-step process. In Library media connection. Limworth Publishing Inc., January, 16-18
Focus on inquiry: a teacher’s guide to implementing inquiry-based learning. (2004). PDF version retrieved from the Alberta Learning Web site: http://www.learning.gov.ab.ca/k_12/curriculum/bySubject/focusoninquiry.pdfEdmonton, Alberta: Alberta Learning. Learning and Teaching Resources Branch.
Gross, M., Sleap, B. and Pretorius, M. (1999). Gifted students in secondary schools: Differentiating the curriculum. University of New South Wales, Sydney: Gerric
Hague, C. and Payton, S. (2010). Digital literacy across the curriculum. Futurelab. Retrieved from www.futurelab.org.uk/projects/digital-participation
Johnson, L. and Lamb, A. (2007). Evaluating internet resources. In Teacher tap: Professional development resources for educators and librarians. Retrieved from: http://eduscapes.com/tap/topic32.htm
Johnson, L. and Lamb, A. (2006-2010). Pathfinders. In Electronic materials for children and young adults. Retrieved from http://eduscapes.com/earth/informational/path3.html
Kuhlthau, C. (1993). Seeking Meaning: A process approach to library skills instruction. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Kuntz, K. (2003). Pathfinders: Helping student find paths to information, In Multimedia Schools, 10(3). Retrieved from http://www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/may03/kuntz.shtml
McKenzie, J. (1997). Deep thinking and deep reading in an age of info-glut, info-garbage, info-glitz and info-glimmer. In From now on: The educational technology journal, 6(6), March.
McNicholas, C. and Todd Ross J. (1996). New kids on the block: is it worth the investment? Scan, 15(4), November, 40-42.
Nielsen, J. (2005). Usability of websites for teenagers. On Alertbox, January 31. Retrieved from: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/teenagers.html
Nielsen, J. (2010). Scrolling and Attention. On Alertbox, March 22. Retrieved from: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/scrolling-attention.html
Sizer, T. Essential Questions. Retrieved from http://www.colegiobolivar.edu.co/apenglish/ces_essential_questions.
Valenza, J. (2008). Top ten reasons why your next pathfinder should be a wiki. Retrieved from: http://informationfluency.wikispaces.com/Ten+reasons+why+your+next+pathfinder+should+be+a+wiki
Before I relate some specific shortcomings, it appears that I made two major mistakes.
In the Pathfinder itself, my annotations had too much information ABOUT the resource and not enough information about how to use them. I don't know that I recall that being clearly explained as the role of the annotations. It may well have been in a podcast or a reading that I missed (there were one or two that I couldn't get to via CSU library) but I felt that my annotations followed the prescriptions given by Lamb and Johnson. The annotations should have included IL directions. I included these in the front page of the Pathfinder as part of a scaffold based on an IL model.
In the critical analysis of what was learned from the process of constructing the pathfinder, I failed to analyse my learning and research process. I thought that the Pathfinder was the evidence of my learning and research and (as you can't refer to yourself) referred to aspects of the Pathfinder and analysed them as examples of my learning.
So the lesson is, from the first time you start experimenting with the search engine, keep a record of what you do, good and bad, and include an analysis of this in the assignment. For me, searching for websites is an automatic skill that I have been developing for some time. I had selected the resources and put the Pathfinder together well before I began the analysis and found it hard to recall the detail of the process apart from one or two highlights.
The difficulty was containing the resources to the specified 15. I think that I'm pretty good at that but I also know that it takes a long time – even longer now that the course has introduced me to so many new search engines. I have learnt some new things such as how to have quick access to most of these search engines through the search box in my web browser toolbar. Should I have included that?
Anyway, some specifics.
1. I didn't reference the class for which I designed the Pathfinder. I named it by NSW Stage and described the make-up of the class. I'm not sure what it means to reference the class. It would be worth finding out.
2. I failed to establish the learning needs. I didn't refer to outcomes but I did specify the topic, type of task and assessment and needs such as "choice" and "access to primary sources".
3. I didn't compare the search engines. In fact I did include some detailed observations about the strengths and weaknesses of the search engines and them took them out to keep under the word limit.
4. I thought that the aim was to evaluate the websites for their usefulness for the students, but I should have evaluated my search strategy and use of the web evaluation criteria from Assignment 1. (It makes so much sense when I write it now). Except that James says, less on source evaluation and more about my search strategy.
5. One of the times that I did discuss something new that I had learned doing this task, I talked about using Advanced Google to locate copy-right free images (they're referred to as reusable images). I explained what I had learned about the importance of eye candy for teenagers. James said that this was discussing the pathfinder, not my learning.
6. I included a quote from Johnson and Lamb about what annotations should do. It didn't include IL. James thought that I should have included this. Once again, I shared what I had learned from Johnson and Lamb but this wasn't seen as my learning.
7. James said that I needed to include references on searching and search engines.
Finally, as always, a reference list that might prove useful.
References
Australian Schools Library Association. (2004). Standards of professional excellence for teacher librarians. Retrieved from: http://www.asla.org.au/policy/standards.htm
Schools Library Association of South Australia. (2008). http://www.slasa.asn.au/Advocacy/rolestatement.html
Brown, C.A. (2008). Building Rubrics: A step-by-step process. In Library media connection. Limworth Publishing Inc., January, 16-18
Focus on inquiry: a teacher’s guide to implementing inquiry-based learning. (2004). PDF version retrieved from the Alberta Learning Web site: http://www.learning.gov.ab.ca/k_12/curriculum/bySubject/focusoninquiry.pdfEdmonton, Alberta: Alberta Learning. Learning and Teaching Resources Branch.
Gross, M., Sleap, B. and Pretorius, M. (1999). Gifted students in secondary schools: Differentiating the curriculum. University of New South Wales, Sydney: Gerric
Hague, C. and Payton, S. (2010). Digital literacy across the curriculum. Futurelab. Retrieved from www.futurelab.org.uk/projects/digital-participation
Johnson, L. and Lamb, A. (2007). Evaluating internet resources. In Teacher tap: Professional development resources for educators and librarians. Retrieved from: http://eduscapes.com/tap/topic32.htm
Johnson, L. and Lamb, A. (2006-2010). Pathfinders. In Electronic materials for children and young adults. Retrieved from http://eduscapes.com/earth/informational/path3.html
Kuhlthau, C. (1993). Seeking Meaning: A process approach to library skills instruction. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Kuntz, K. (2003). Pathfinders: Helping student find paths to information, In Multimedia Schools, 10(3). Retrieved from http://www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/may03/kuntz.shtml
McKenzie, J. (1997). Deep thinking and deep reading in an age of info-glut, info-garbage, info-glitz and info-glimmer. In From now on: The educational technology journal, 6(6), March.
McNicholas, C. and Todd Ross J. (1996). New kids on the block: is it worth the investment? Scan, 15(4), November, 40-42.
Nielsen, J. (2005). Usability of websites for teenagers. On Alertbox, January 31. Retrieved from: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/teenagers.html
Nielsen, J. (2010). Scrolling and Attention. On Alertbox, March 22. Retrieved from: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/scrolling-attention.html
Sizer, T. Essential Questions. Retrieved from http://www.colegiobolivar.edu.co/apenglish/ces_essential_questions.
Valenza, J. (2008). Top ten reasons why your next pathfinder should be a wiki. Retrieved from: http://informationfluency.wikispaces.com/Ten+reasons+why+your+next+pathfinder+should+be+a+wiki
ETL 501 Assignment 1 Feedback
It seems, dear readers, that some people have been uncovering my credentials. Let me assure whomever it may concern that any previous academic experience means little when it comes to the MTL course. It is a level playing field, if ever there was. Here is a belated report on ETL 501 Assignment 1.
1. Don't forget to include the two website criteria in your bibliography. (Obvious isn't it). I chose WWW Cyberguide rating for content evaluation by McLachlan and Criteria for website evaluation by Johnson and Lamb.
2. In your critical examination, include some rank or comment about which criteria are the more important.
3. I only discussed some of the criteria (word limit) that I thought needed further work. I needed to mention and comment briefly on the other criteria and the evaluation tool/model as a whole. Do they cover all the areas that are important to cover? Why is or isn't each tool a valid set of criteria for a TL to use.
4. Because I thought that there were inadequacies in The Cyberguide, I added a couple of criteria. My understanding of the assignment was that this was acceptable and that this set [revised] of criteria should be used in part 2. However, I was criticised for using these extra criteria.Perhaps that's a bit strong. The comment was, "If you are going beyond the designated set of criteria you need to state that you are doing so and why you feel that it is important to do so.
5. I ran out of words or word limit and didn't address all four websites in equal depth and specific references to the criteria.
6. It's important to refer to the needs of your chosen student group and the usefulness of the website for them. You should also refer to the usefulness of the tools for the TL is making that judgement.
Finally, here is my reference list (minus the McLachlan Cyberguide).
References
Bomar, S. (2010) The annotated bibliography: A schoolwide instructional framework for evaluating sources. In Knowledge Quest Volume 38 No. 3 January/February pp. 72-75 American Library Association. Retrieved from CSU Library.
Brown, J., Hickey, K., and Pozen, V. (2002 revision). Methods of evaluation. In An educators’ guide to credibility and web evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/wp/credibility/
Gaffney, M. (2010). Enhancing teachers’ take-up of digital content: Factors and design principles in technology adoption. Education Services Australia.
Standards of professional excellence for teacher librarians. Australian School Library Association. Retrieved from: www.asla.org.au/policy/standards.htm
Hague, C. and Payton, S. (2010). Digital literacy across the curriculum. Futurelab. Retrieved from www.futurelab.org.uk
Herring, J.E. (2004). The internet. In The internet and information skills: a guide for teachers and school librarians. London: Facet
Hughes-Hassell, S. and Mancall, J. (2005). Collection management for youth: Responding to the needs of learners. ALA Editions. Retrieved from CSU EBook library.
Johnson, L. and Lamb, A. (2007). Evaluating internet resources. In Teacher tap: Professional development resources for educators and librarians. Retrieved from: http://eduscapes.com/tap/topic32.htm
Kennedy, J. (2005). A collection development policy for digital information resources. In The Australian Library Journal. April 2005. Retrieved from: http://alia.org.au/publishing/alj/54.3/full.text/kennedy.html
Kennedy, J. (2006). Collection management: A concise introduction. Wagga Wagga: Charles Sturt University Centre for Information Studies
Latham, B., & Poe. J. (2008). Evaluation and selection of new format materials: electronic resources. In J.R. Kennedy, L Vardaman, & G.B. McCabe (Eds.), Our new public, a changing clientele: bewildering issues or new challenges for managing libraries (pp. 257-265). Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited.
Naidu, S. (2005) Evaluating the Usability of Educational Websites for Children. In Usability News. Vol. 7(2) July. Retrieved from http://psychology.wichita.edu/newsurl/usabilitynews/72/children_internet.asp
Nielsen, J. (2005). Usability of websites for teenagers. January 31st. Retrieved from: Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox http://www.useit.com/alertbox/teenagers.html
Osborne, H. (2000). In Other Words... Assessing Readability. . .Rules for Playing the Numbers Game. In Boston Globe's On Call Magazine, December Retrieved from: http://www.healthliteracy.com/article.asp?PageID=3806
Pfoeffer, P. (2002). Web usability and children: Current research and implications for information professionals. In Orana. July. pp. 11 to 13
Retrieved from: http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/fullText;dn=119869;res=AEIPT
Shrock, K. (2002). The ABCs of Web Site Evaluation. Retrieved from http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schrockguide/eval.html
South Regional Educational Board: SREB (2010). Criteria for evaluating web sites. Retrieved from http://www.evalutech.sreb.org/criteria/web.asp
1. Don't forget to include the two website criteria in your bibliography. (Obvious isn't it). I chose WWW Cyberguide rating for content evaluation by McLachlan and Criteria for website evaluation by Johnson and Lamb.
2. In your critical examination, include some rank or comment about which criteria are the more important.
3. I only discussed some of the criteria (word limit) that I thought needed further work. I needed to mention and comment briefly on the other criteria and the evaluation tool/model as a whole. Do they cover all the areas that are important to cover? Why is or isn't each tool a valid set of criteria for a TL to use.
4. Because I thought that there were inadequacies in The Cyberguide, I added a couple of criteria. My understanding of the assignment was that this was acceptable and that this set [revised] of criteria should be used in part 2. However, I was criticised for using these extra criteria.Perhaps that's a bit strong. The comment was, "If you are going beyond the designated set of criteria you need to state that you are doing so and why you feel that it is important to do so.
5. I ran out of words or word limit and didn't address all four websites in equal depth and specific references to the criteria.
6. It's important to refer to the needs of your chosen student group and the usefulness of the website for them. You should also refer to the usefulness of the tools for the TL is making that judgement.
Finally, here is my reference list (minus the McLachlan Cyberguide).
References
Bomar, S. (2010) The annotated bibliography: A schoolwide instructional framework for evaluating sources. In Knowledge Quest Volume 38 No. 3 January/February pp. 72-75 American Library Association. Retrieved from CSU Library.
Brown, J., Hickey, K., and Pozen, V. (2002 revision). Methods of evaluation. In An educators’ guide to credibility and web evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/wp/credibility/
Gaffney, M. (2010). Enhancing teachers’ take-up of digital content: Factors and design principles in technology adoption. Education Services Australia.
Standards of professional excellence for teacher librarians. Australian School Library Association. Retrieved from: www.asla.org.au/policy/standards.htm
Hague, C. and Payton, S. (2010). Digital literacy across the curriculum. Futurelab. Retrieved from www.futurelab.org.uk
Herring, J.E. (2004). The internet. In The internet and information skills: a guide for teachers and school librarians. London: Facet
Hughes-Hassell, S. and Mancall, J. (2005). Collection management for youth: Responding to the needs of learners. ALA Editions. Retrieved from CSU EBook library.
Johnson, L. and Lamb, A. (2007). Evaluating internet resources. In Teacher tap: Professional development resources for educators and librarians. Retrieved from: http://eduscapes.com/tap/topic32.htm
Kennedy, J. (2005). A collection development policy for digital information resources. In The Australian Library Journal. April 2005. Retrieved from: http://alia.org.au/publishing/alj/54.3/full.text/kennedy.html
Kennedy, J. (2006). Collection management: A concise introduction. Wagga Wagga: Charles Sturt University Centre for Information Studies
Latham, B., & Poe. J. (2008). Evaluation and selection of new format materials: electronic resources. In J.R. Kennedy, L Vardaman, & G.B. McCabe (Eds.), Our new public, a changing clientele: bewildering issues or new challenges for managing libraries (pp. 257-265). Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited.
Naidu, S. (2005) Evaluating the Usability of Educational Websites for Children. In Usability News. Vol. 7(2) July. Retrieved from http://psychology.wichita.edu/newsurl/usabilitynews/72/children_internet.asp
Nielsen, J. (2005). Usability of websites for teenagers. January 31st. Retrieved from: Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox http://www.useit.com/alertbox/teenagers.html
Osborne, H. (2000). In Other Words... Assessing Readability. . .Rules for Playing the Numbers Game. In Boston Globe's On Call Magazine, December Retrieved from: http://www.healthliteracy.com/article.asp?PageID=3806
Pfoeffer, P. (2002). Web usability and children: Current research and implications for information professionals. In Orana. July. pp. 11 to 13
Retrieved from: http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/fullText;dn=119869;res=AEIPT
Shrock, K. (2002). The ABCs of Web Site Evaluation. Retrieved from http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schrockguide/eval.html
South Regional Educational Board: SREB (2010). Criteria for evaluating web sites. Retrieved from http://www.evalutech.sreb.org/criteria/web.asp
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Pathfinder
I'm way behind in posting feedback from Assignment 1. In the meantime,I've just submitted Assignment 2. If it is of interest, here's the URL for my Assignment 2 Pathfinder.
http://medievalpathfinder.wikispaces.com
http://medievalpathfinder.wikispaces.com
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Reference Interview
I thought that I'd share the three versions of my response to James Herring's challenge to define a reference interview in twenty words or less. Two and three are just modifications of the original.I like 1 and 3.
Number 1
Identify needs
Note specifics
Questions or keywords
Utilise Information Literacy
Instruct how to locate information
Range of information needs
Evaluate
Number 2
After Kluegel and Ross
After Kluegel and Ross and ORC
Invisible
Narrowing, clarifying
Questions or keywords
User-Librarian Collaboration
Interactive communication
Remote or in person
Evaluate and monitor
Invisible
Narrowing, clarifying
Questions or keywords
User-Librarian Collaboration
Interactive communication
Referal in person or online
Evaluate and monitor
Number 3
Number 1
Identify needs
Note specifics
Questions or keywords
Utilise Information Literacy
Instruct how to locate information
Range of information needs
Evaluate
Number 2
After Kluegel and Ross
After Kluegel and Ross and ORC
Invisible
Narrowing, clarifying
Questions or keywords
User-Librarian Collaboration
Interactive communication
Remote or in person
Evaluate and monitor
Invisible
Narrowing, clarifying
Questions or keywords
User-Librarian Collaboration
Interactive communication
Referal in person or online
Evaluate and monitor
Number 3
Saturday, August 21, 2010
ETL 503 Assignment 2 Useful Link for Policy Development
Here's a site with a pro forma for developing Collection Policy and other useful evaluation material.
http://www.det.wa.edu.au/education/cmis/eval/library/domains/index.htm#teachers
http://www.det.wa.edu.au/education/cmis/eval/library/domains/index.htm#teachers
ETL 501 Assignment 1
Some quick thoughts about the ETL 501 assignment 1. Firstly, you may not be aware that CSU have their own website evaluation criteria. It can be found doing a search in the library.
Secondly, I received some excellent advice about doing the critical evaluation. Pick the things that matter educationally and explain, from your reading or criteria, why those aspects are important.
•Easy to navigate? Yes/No? Why does this matter?
•Great graphics or interactivity? Why does this matter?
•Why could interactivity be a problem as well as a positive?
•Author's name easy to find? Why does this matter?
•Domain name .edu or .org Why is that helpful?
•Evidence of bias? Does this matter? Why or why not?
•Links work or they don't? What does this say about the site?
•What is the student's purpose for the site and what is my student audience?
•Will the site suit their purpose?
•Will it cater for all or just some of them?
Here are some references that may be of interest.
Bomar, S. (2010) The annotated bibliography: A schoolwide instructional framework for evaluating sources. In Knowledge Quest Volume 38 No. 3 January/February pp. 72-75 American Library Association. Retrieved from CSU Library.
Brown, J., Hickey, K., and Pozen, V. (2002 revision). Methods of evaluation. In An educators’ guide to credibility and web evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/wp/credibility/
Gaffney, M. (2010). Enhancing teachers’ take-up of digital content: Factors and design principles in technology adoption. Education Services Australia.
Standards of professional excellence for teacher librarians. Australian School Library Association. Retrieved from: www.asla.org.au/policy/standards.htm
Hague, C. and Payton, S. (2010). Digital literacy across the curriculum. Futurelab. Retrieved from www.futurelab.org.uk
Herring, J.E. (2004). The internet. In The internet and information skills: a guide for teachers and school librarians. London: Facet
Hughes-Hassell, S. and Mancall, J. (2005). Collection management for youth: Responding to the needs of learners. ALA Editions. Retrieved from CSU EBook library.
Johnson, L. and Lamb, A. (2007). Evaluating internet resources. In Teacher tap: Professional development resources for educators and librarians. Retrieved from: http://eduscapes.com/tap/topic32.htm
Kennedy, J. (2005). A collection development policy for digital information resources. In The Australian Library Journal. April 2005. Retrieved from: http://alia.org.au/publishing/alj/54.3/full.text/kennedy.html
Kennedy, J. (2006). Collection management: A concise introduction. Wagga Wagga: Charles Sturt University Centre for Information Studies
Latham, B., & Poe. J. (2008). Evaluation and selection of new format materials: electronic resources. In J.R. Kennedy, L Vardaman, & G.B. McCabe (Eds.), Our new public, a changing clientele: bewildering issues or new challenges for managing libraries (pp. 257-265). Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited.
Naidu, S. (2005) Evaluating the Usability of Educational Websites for Children. In Usability News. Vol. 7(2) July. Retrieved from http://psychology.wichita.edu/newsurl/usabilitynews/72/children_internet.asp
Nielsen, J. (2005). Usability of websites for teenagers. January 31st. Retrieved from: Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox http://www.useit.com/alertbox/teenagers.html
Osborne, H. (2000). In Other Words... Assessing Readability. . .Rules for Playing the Numbers Game. In Boston Globe's On Call Magazine, December Retrieved from: http://www.healthliteracy.com/article.asp?PageID=3806
Pfoeffer, P. (2002). Web usability and children: Current research and implications for information professionals. In Orana. July. pp. 11 to 13
Retrieved from: http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/fullText;dn=119869;res=AEIPT
Shrock, K. (2002). The ABCs of Web Site Evaluation. Retrieved from http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schrockguide/eval.html
South Regional Educational Board: SREB (2010). Criteria for evaluating web sites. Retrieved from http://www.evalutech.sreb.org/criteria/web.asp
Secondly, I received some excellent advice about doing the critical evaluation. Pick the things that matter educationally and explain, from your reading or criteria, why those aspects are important.
•Easy to navigate? Yes/No? Why does this matter?
•Great graphics or interactivity? Why does this matter?
•Why could interactivity be a problem as well as a positive?
•Author's name easy to find? Why does this matter?
•Domain name .edu or .org Why is that helpful?
•Evidence of bias? Does this matter? Why or why not?
•Links work or they don't? What does this say about the site?
•What is the student's purpose for the site and what is my student audience?
•Will the site suit their purpose?
•Will it cater for all or just some of them?
Here are some references that may be of interest.
Bomar, S. (2010) The annotated bibliography: A schoolwide instructional framework for evaluating sources. In Knowledge Quest Volume 38 No. 3 January/February pp. 72-75 American Library Association. Retrieved from CSU Library.
Brown, J., Hickey, K., and Pozen, V. (2002 revision). Methods of evaluation. In An educators’ guide to credibility and web evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/wp/credibility/
Gaffney, M. (2010). Enhancing teachers’ take-up of digital content: Factors and design principles in technology adoption. Education Services Australia.
Standards of professional excellence for teacher librarians. Australian School Library Association. Retrieved from: www.asla.org.au/policy/standards.htm
Hague, C. and Payton, S. (2010). Digital literacy across the curriculum. Futurelab. Retrieved from www.futurelab.org.uk
Herring, J.E. (2004). The internet. In The internet and information skills: a guide for teachers and school librarians. London: Facet
Hughes-Hassell, S. and Mancall, J. (2005). Collection management for youth: Responding to the needs of learners. ALA Editions. Retrieved from CSU EBook library.
Johnson, L. and Lamb, A. (2007). Evaluating internet resources. In Teacher tap: Professional development resources for educators and librarians. Retrieved from: http://eduscapes.com/tap/topic32.htm
Kennedy, J. (2005). A collection development policy for digital information resources. In The Australian Library Journal. April 2005. Retrieved from: http://alia.org.au/publishing/alj/54.3/full.text/kennedy.html
Kennedy, J. (2006). Collection management: A concise introduction. Wagga Wagga: Charles Sturt University Centre for Information Studies
Latham, B., & Poe. J. (2008). Evaluation and selection of new format materials: electronic resources. In J.R. Kennedy, L Vardaman, & G.B. McCabe (Eds.), Our new public, a changing clientele: bewildering issues or new challenges for managing libraries (pp. 257-265). Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited.
Naidu, S. (2005) Evaluating the Usability of Educational Websites for Children. In Usability News. Vol. 7(2) July. Retrieved from http://psychology.wichita.edu/newsurl/usabilitynews/72/children_internet.asp
Nielsen, J. (2005). Usability of websites for teenagers. January 31st. Retrieved from: Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox http://www.useit.com/alertbox/teenagers.html
Osborne, H. (2000). In Other Words... Assessing Readability. . .Rules for Playing the Numbers Game. In Boston Globe's On Call Magazine, December Retrieved from: http://www.healthliteracy.com/article.asp?PageID=3806
Pfoeffer, P. (2002). Web usability and children: Current research and implications for information professionals. In Orana. July. pp. 11 to 13
Retrieved from: http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/fullText;dn=119869;res=AEIPT
Shrock, K. (2002). The ABCs of Web Site Evaluation. Retrieved from http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schrockguide/eval.html
South Regional Educational Board: SREB (2010). Criteria for evaluating web sites. Retrieved from http://www.evalutech.sreb.org/criteria/web.asp
Sunday, August 1, 2010
ETL401 Collaboration
Just in case there are links out there to those doing ETL 401, I'm providing this link for an article on Collaboration between teacher librarians and teachers. You will recognise many of the researchers cited.
http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-2/librarians.html
http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-2/librarians.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)