Month: April 2020

I’ve previously blogged about suggesting coding platforms such as Scratch Jr. to help build critical thinking and digital literacy, which I still stand by. However, I am fully against it as a means of “supporting science and mathematics” (Sterling, 2016). Does this mean I do not want to see students programming an App which can solve any and all balancing reactions in Chemistry? No, in fact, I would give them full marks for that unit if they pulled it off. What it DOES mean is that I do not want them focusing their efforts on glorifying a basic skill, simply writing down or narrating each step of the process would be infinitely more efficient than adding the additional layer of programming. There are also courses in Science, such as Biology, where I emphasize academic writing, research, or experimental design. If students are curious about how an MRI scanner works, I can (attempt to) discuss it then encourage them consider medical school if they are truly interested… But wait, they need to be able to write academically to 1) pass the BC Literacy Assessment and 2) pass undergrad courses before applying to Med school; so let’s get back to that writing piece.

An argument for programming and coding to support learning may present itself in Physics where it involves more computational setup of variables, their inputs, and outputs. But even then it should be offered as an alternative means to demonstrate students’ understanding instead of a mandatory “we’re going to use this opportunity to teach coding because it’s related”. Numerous studies on working memory have long since pointed out how it’s very limited in both duration and capacity, piling multiple learning outcomes at once would only inhibit students’ understanding. Consider the work involve in creating a Scratch presentation for a Physics problem: mastery of the concept itself, design of the presentation, knowing & operating required Scratch tools, construction of functional Boolean logic blocks, AND troubleshooting the order of operations involved. Unless the student is familiar with Scratch and has mastered it, all of this would only decrease their motivation for learning, and draw the focus away from the course itself. If there was an option to make it cross-curricular with their computer science-related course, then I would fully support letting them embark on that sort of collaborative course project.

This would go double for math, there are still plenty of students out there who are unable to operate the almighty calculator (joke’s on any teachers who said we wouldn’t walk around with a calculator in our pocket).

Being able to use both a regular scientific calculator (Android) and that nonsensical alternative from Apple, which is an arrangement of math-related buttons, is a skill that most teachers wouldn’t have (some folks are just gluttons for punishment and swear by Apple). This may be one of few moments where teaching computational thinking (how to setup an equation on the calculator) is required, yet can also be entirely omitted if the teacher decides to assess work-only, no answer needed. This would eliminate the need for students to master their brand of pain device, and simply show how they would input that into a calculator. After all, forcing someone to learn to tie their shoes becomes moot in the presence of Velcro or lazy-slip shoes.

 

*All images are from Pixabay, no attributions required.

All these new Apps and terminology that we’re being bombarded with these days reminds me of George Carlin’s skit on the Modern Man *contains coarse language, viewer discretion is advised.
Which brings us to the issue of using social media in education. Web 2.0 is all about user-generated content and many educators have consider integrating it into their courses. This is more evident in higher ed where more courses are starting to promote students form PLN (personal learning networks) through social media connections, or contribute to content online such as through blogging or discussions. Yet for the public K-12 school system, things are a lot more complicated. Take for instance, the list of FOIPPA compliant vs non-compliant services:

While it may seem counterproductive to have such an exhaustive list of unapproved services, there is some sensibility behind it as we strive to protect student (and teacher!) privacy. The main issue behind why most of the listed items are not FOIPPA compliant has to due with how they handle customer’s data; where information is stored outside of Canada and thus not subjected to the same legal protections. Companies would then be free to sell this information to third parties without the consent of the user (remember, K-12 students are children) or their guardians. Another issue would be security, which most people have noticed to be somewhat important as they are inadvertently ZoomBombed while they try to host meetings in our Covid-stricken world. Another thing to complain about is the moderation, or lack of, in using social media as a teaching tool. Asking students to create and upload a video to Youtube (not FOIPPA compliant) or Vimeo (unlisted?) may align with multiple curricular competencies, but there is the struggle between asking students to disable all comments or ignore the ratio of like/dislike. Granted, the majority of the students would probably be mature enough to deal with those, since they already have an online presence outside of school. But then there are those who would are not, or are vulnerable or at-risk individuals, who don’t need that extra drama in their life. Lastly, parents may choose NOT to have let their children have a social media account for their own reasons, which us educators respect.

At the end of the day, I feel like it’s a tad early to “necessitate” use of social media in K-12 education, especially if the district is still struggling with the establishing guidelines for online conduct (still waiting on information on how to “invigilate” online tests).
CAN it be used? Absolutely. As long as the teacher has considered all the downsides, navigated through all the regulations, and are tech-competent enough to operate the platform in a safe and productive way.

*Post has nothing to do with that song. Move along.
**FOIPPA – Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; aka, the reason why you can’t have nice things (in your digital classroom).

While BC has taken steps to ensure their educators are aware of the policies around student privacy and online resources / platforms, the new “normal” of closing of public schools has shown that not all teachers (and school districts) are aware of it or take it seriously. Take GoogleClassroom for example, where teachers  still use that as their learning management system (LMS) to post class information or collect student assignments. Not only are Google services ubiquitous (meaning most individuals have an account), it’s fairly user-friendly compared to other third-party systems (no IT specialist to contact when students lose their password). However, it is not FOIPPA-compliant as their servers are hosted outside of Canada so we don’t know what happens to students’ data. Regan & Jesse (2019) highlighted the main concerns of big data in EdTech: (i) collection of individual information (with their consent, and minimized as much as possible), (ii) choice of anonymity, (iii) surveillance and tracking of information (such as Google’s mobility report), (iv) autonomy of users, (v) due process, and mostly importantly (vi) ownership of data.

Since working as a teacher for a distance-learning program, I consider myself to be (slightly) more aware than most of the limitations for what can & can’t be used as tools for my classes. With that in mind, it is unfortunate that the list of unapproved resources vastly outnumber the approved. Furthermore, even the approved programs may require additional “approval” as educators begin to explore ways to provide education while public schools are closed. Office365 is a great example of how it is similar in functionality compared to Google, whilst being FOIPPA compliant, with all BC students and teachers having a registered account. Yet we’ve now run into issues with using virtual conferencing via Microsoft Teams mayhaps being an inappropriate substitute of face-to-face teaching, given the untested concerns around 1:1 teacher-student interview, expectations around webcam and broadcasting for both parties, or reliable accessibility to internet.

Frankly, at the end of the day, I’d just like them to clarify that our continuity of learning means secondary students do not unconditionally move on to next year.

 

 

Regan, P., & Jesse, J. (2019). Ethical challenges of edtech, big data and personalized learning: Twenty-first century student sorting and tracking. Ethics and Information Technology, 21(3), 167-179. DOI: 10.1007/s10676-018-9492-2

Above image is not real: https://twitter.com/Johnee_B/status/1212771703283163137

It feels like this week’s prompt is rather similar to last week where my previous post already discussed using Scratch basically as a Makerspace tool to design, create, play, and share their creations. This kind of software which allows for creation of virtually anything has slowly become more popular; examples which come to mind are Little Big Planet (in education?), and more recently, dreams.

However, there are several issues with implementing Makerspaces:

1. Cost – upfront supply cost is a substantial hurdle, especially if one is looking at a full class set.
2. Portability – loaning out these equipment to students so they can work on it at home is fraught with dangers (ie, things going “missing”). Not lending out the equipment would mean students would have limited time to work on their designs / creations.
3. Time consumption – students dedicated to making a quality project would gladly invest hundreds of hours into it… which is an issue for most courses as we move from concept to concept within weeks or days.
4. Distraction – similar to searching for literature reviews, it’s easy to fall into the rabbit hole when looking for examples / inspiration.
5. Learning goals – for upper level courses, there’s usually a focus on specific concept or procedural knowledge (senior science!). While it would be amazing for a student to create a virtual dissection using Scratch / MakerSpace of some sort, the design process fidelity to actuality would eclipse that of the content (which could be either good or bad, depending on teaching goals).
6. Cumbersome – I could ask students to create virtual reality (VR) course meal which reflects X amounts proteins, lipids, or carbs whilst considering dietary restrictions like gluten-free / soy-free … but honestly, a trip to the grocery would be much simpler and more practical. That is, until someone creates said scenario and provides me a class set of VR / AR goggles. The same goes for Trades classes, hands-on experiences would be much more relevant that a generic Makerspace kit (unless said kit was tailored to the course).
7. FOIPPA – and of course we need to talk about this. Servers storing account information are most likely outside of Canada, thus blah-blah-blah…

In regards to how my own teaching situation, a physical kit of Makerspace items would be inefficient as my classes are primarily done online (blended courses – two days at school, rest at home). As mentioned, obtaining a class kit is expensive and loaning kits would be a logistical nightmare; and I’m sure parents at home will curse me every time they step on Lego Mindstorm pieces. Our tech teacher is facing this issue right now with all the VR and AR hardware used for projects are at school. Students cannot come into the building due to Covid restrictions, and there are not enough sets to loan them out (also consider that they would require sterilization before and after). Another issue would if the learning goals are focused more on procedural or practical skills than creativity – such as proper laboratory skills.

tl;dr – great idea, working on feasibility.