“Rather than treat pedagogy as the transfer of knowledge from teachers who are experts to students who are receptacles, educators should consider more hands-on and informal types of learning.”
John Seeley Brown [Dec. 2006] reported by Martin LaMonica [Staff Writer, CNET News]. Accessed at: http://news.cnet.com/Futurist-To-fix-education,-think-Web-2.0/2100-1032_3-6140175.html on 21/02/10
I’ve been interested for a very long time now in the exploration of pedagogical uses for modern (‘m’) tools and technologies. I hazard to say techniques at this stage, because it is in fact the techniques which need to be pedagogically planned. I’m also interested in the social implications of ‘m’ and how these might be brought to bear on the way we enable learning to take place.
An earlier blog post [https://eduvel.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/blooms/] discusses my use of Bloom’s Taxonomy as an introduction to the development of ‘m’ techniques. I use this taxonomy in the preparation of (and as part of) my workshops. Hitherto, Blooms’ has been the bedrock of my exploration and development.
However, there are other theories that lend themselves to being re-visited with one eye on the tools and technologies of 2010 and beyond. Others have begun this and the foremost seems to be:
- http://dinamehta.com/blog/2010/01/12/twitter-maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-nay-hierarchy-of-tweets/ – neatly begins the discussion.
- http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/the-hierarchy-of-digital-distractions/ – humorously extends the debate.
- http://www.aheadofideas.com/?p=156 (Dan Bevarly) – goes very much in the direction I’d like to explore.
I’m quite interested in the way we might revisit Maslow, with an eye on the social and economic changes that are happening around us. I think there’s a real need now to recognise how the (especially) lower levels of Maslow’s hierarchy are changing. Young learners now have technological needs that the original paper preceded. As Dan Bevarly (@dbevarly) says: “You can’t engage if you can’t connect”. I am working on this, but as with everything else (and work etc), it’s a slow process.
Some others I have also explored are:
- Sizing up the situation at hand through objective observation.
- Drawing forth knowledge about such situations by recalling similar past experiences (both your own and those of the people around you).
- Judging how to proceed, based on this knowledge
http://www.stevehargadon.com/2007/01/john-seely-brown-on-web-20-and-culture.html (Makes a start on Web 2.0 with Dewey at the root.)
“He who learns but does not think is lost. He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger.”
(Lunyu 2.15) from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confucius/ [accessed: 19/02/10]
and to this Confucian quote I would add:
“he who teaches but does not learn – is a fool”
Yet none have addressed, as far as my brief desk-search can see, the tools and technologies of 2010. These must surely change the way we accommodate all of the well-grounded theories and although I’m certain that there are scholars out there who are re-visiting them, these are not yet easily found.
I will however revisit Kolb as I can, like Bloom’s Taxonomy, put his theories to good use straight away.
- Concrete Experience – (a new experience of situation is encountered, or a reinterpretation of existing experience)
- Reflective Observation (of the new experience. Of particular importance are any inconsistencies between experience and understanding)
- Abstract Conceptualisation (Reflection gives rise to a new idea, or a modification of an existing abstract concept)
- Active Experimentation (the learner applies them to the world around them to see what results)
I will post my reflections over time by taking each stage of the above and suggesting ways of employing ‘m’ tools, technologies and techniques to the cycle.
I’d love to hear of any existing examples.