Author: jca

What kinds of digital tools promote and encourage critical thinking?
(I’m an ADST teacher, will be examining from a lens of design & problem solving).

• Scratch – online coding software, ages K – whenever.

  

  I used to work as an after school coding instructor and this was the software I used to introduce grades 4 – 7 students to coding. The platform is free to all and allows both creation and sharing of projects ranging from interactive games, adaptations of books and movies, or even lessons (such as worked examples of math questions).  Students can view other’s projects / work to get ideas for their own designs, or simply explore them for fun or learning. The critical thinking piece which I focused on when using this is from creation of projects, in whatever form that may take. The coding aspect of the platform requires students to assemble Boolean logic blocks in a logical fashion in order to create a desired effect.

  

  A simple example of moving an image towards the right could be constructed in multiple ways:

  • Use the [Move ___ Steps] block
  • Use a [Change X by ___] block.
  • Use a [Move to Mouse Pointer] block, and move your mouse to desired location (right).
  • Use a [Go to X = ___, Y = ____] block, and designate the desired Cartesian coordinate.

The intricacies of coding and design come from analyzing a complex motion into basic steps, and rearranging them into sequential orders, command priority, limits and exceptions, and so forth. Not only can students demonstrate their own critical thinking by solving their problems through demonstrating how they set up a solution, or by looking for ways of “self-help” such as examining other projects’ codes and recreating / adapting them, or simple trial & error. The most complex project I assigned my students was to create a complex maze with a fully controllable character, who has to make it to the goal without a) touching any walls, b) within a set time limit, and c) have multiple stages of difficulty (this was the ‘extra challenge’).

• Design-focused video games (Minecraft, Terraria, etc)
  Depending on the game, critical thinking can be demonstrated in solving problems such as how to re-create images or object using what is available within the game.
  

  Again, multiple core competency skills are involved in designing and creating such as identifying investigation question (what does Hogwarts look like), challenges (how to create it – what type of textured blocks for certain parts), self-reflection (comparing design to original work), and so on.

How does critical thinking influence narratives and perspectives?

Ideally, students can examine other individual’s works to see the logical framework behind it’s creation. Using Scratch for example, a person choosing to use simpler commands such as [Move ___ Steps] could be due to them being new to the platform, thus haven’t found the other alternatives. If it’s a simple, scripted story, then there would be no need for more complex commands when a simpler version is available. On the other hand, it could be that the creator does not understand Cartesian Coordinate systems, thus they are unable to utilize the [Move X = __, Y = __] commands. This was evident during my experiences when I noticed the older elementary students being fully comfortable with using ordered pairs, while younger students chose ‘easier’ options like [Move to Cursor]. Students conducting these sort of analysis also leads them towards inquiring about higher order processes to understand how to use those commands for themselves, and help broaden their perspective of different ways to approach and address similar questions.

While Rheingold’s article on information literacy and fact-checking credible sources promotes several good practices relevant for citizens in this digital age, I believe that an addendum should be added where even credible, reputable sources should be looked at under scrutiny. A few (in)famous examples include Andrew Wakefield’s RETRACTED 1998 paper in The Lancet which linked autism to MMR vaccination (which is great when discussing Scientific Methods), and more recently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fiasco around hurricane Dorian. The aphorism of “don’t trust everything you see online” seems to be more important than ever.

As educators, we’re likely to have already created a happy little bubble from which we draw our ideas or practices from. Whether it’s a globally renowned site like Pintrest or more private channels like a fellow teacher’s course page, we’re always trying to find newer inspirations to toy with. However, one of the biggest concern is filtering the information to make sure it’s Credible:

2. Purell Reduces Student Absenteeism
3. “News websites” (once upon a happier time, we could cite this as a joke… now we worry if students know the difference…)

Filtering techniques such as checking the website’s reputation, statement of their purpose & goals, or red flags (such as biases) in their past publications are all solid choices. Other than individuals whose job or reputation relies on distributing 100% certified facts all the time (such as journalist, and maybe presidents?), the general public should not require in-depth “detective work” for every bit of information they come across online. Common sense and a healthy bit of skepticism is often more than enough. Often times, those individuals who are more invested in the topic or perhaps true professionals will shed light on any fake articles as they rigorously test them. Rheingold’s interview with Ito where she stated “those who contribute information online, show higher concerns about credibility” (Rheingold, 2012) resonated with me the most from the reading. The timing also coincides with a recent White House briefing where the doctor commented about needing the young generation to stay healthy because they bring forth innovations like speedrunning in video games. The fact that they can delve so deeply into the mechanics of a game and create conditions which borderline cheating, which the community will religiously and meticulously check against, is simply astounding (similar to the scientific community which examines replicability and validity of data). It’s a clear demonstration that they possess a much greater capacity to filter information, albeit limited to what they are interested in. The most important thing for educators, in my opinion, is to lead students towards transferring that sense of skepticism or investigative abilities from their interest area to a more global perspective. While it’s useful to introduce examples of reliable / unreliable sources and tools to students at the beginning, by the end of the course, they should be able to self-assess novel content and come up with their own filters.

References:

Rheingold, H., & Weeks, A. (2012). Net smart : How to thrive online. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca

Because that’s all it’s is good for.

The BC Digital Literacy Framework seems to be cobbled together using bits and pieces of other works (ISTE, CommonSense Media, and European Comission… just three sources?) and is currently outdated according to one of the people who helped write it. On top of that, our BC curriculum just had a massive overhaul recently, switching from teacher-centered teaching to student-centered learning. This makes that framework worth even less, especially when you can easily find teachers whom they themselves are not digitally literate enough to “teach” digital literacy.

Another issue with the framework, as with most frameworks, is that it’s much too idealistic. For example, one of the competencies is that “A digitally literate person actively and constantly explores emerging technologies, integrates them in his/her environment and uses them for lifelong learning” (BC Digital Literacy Framework, n.d.). Forget emerging tech, even now there are very few individuals who have fully mastered both PC and Apple products (should I include Linux too?) despite them being around for decades.  Furthermore, emerging technology is often riddled with issues and are NOT convenient nor user friendly due to lack of consumer feedback.

One more kick before I move on: even if teachers could somehow freeze time to explore all emergent technology, it’s still meaningless as policies would bar us from ever implementing them in the classroom (FOIPPA-oppa!).

On a side note, teaching digital literacy / citizenship is a complicated business. The majority of students are generally “minimally meeting” or perhaps “fully meeting” expectations, due to a combination of good parenting (it’s a verb!) and self/formal education on the topic. However, the concern are for those in the opposite category; the ones who endanger themselves because of poor role models, and lack of self-awareness, personal safety, or just foresight. Much like how teen smoking (and more recently, vaping) continues to exist despite all counter-efforts, those who are not interested will simply continue in their ignorance.

Last but not least – something about our Project for the course:

This week’s bundle of reading seem to be centered around more projections of what future EdTech would look like. For instance, Siemens raised points such as “New forms of digital in/exclusion” and “Reimaging forms of EdTech suitable for an age of Climate Change”. My opinion on these articles has remained the same since embarking on my journey in this M.Ed course, and that is these articles are simply good banter material during coffee break, but far too theoretical and limited in use to be of worthwhile consideration. The idea of new forms of in/exclusion online calls on researchers to address “links between developments in technology, inequality and education”, and design education that is more accessible to all. My response is that while commendable, it is near-impossible to implement a catch-all approach given that actual state of public (or private) education. Social constraints will be a far greater barrier as those who are not “well-resourced” would prioritize financial stability over education; no amount of accessible education or technology can immediately put food on the table like an actual job. Thus the onus should be on policy makers to change their mindset that higher education leads to higher income. If the economy is floundering, then those high income jobs simply are not available (or only available to those at the highest education level, which defeats the whole purpose of education equality).
On the idea of sustainable and environmentally-friendly EdTech innovations, this is absolutely counterproductive. To make clear, I am not against those concepts nor the need to have technology which aligns with them. The issue is posing constraints early on would only seek to hamper innovation – optimization should come afterwards, not before.  His statement that this should be “priority for everyone working in the area of education and technology” is also laughable as those IN education and technology are and well aware of sustainability issues; it’s the population that is ignorant or malicious (ie. those rolling back environmental protection) which is having a greater strain on everyone’s limited resources.

Using bigger/faster(?) buckets to drain water from a sinking boat will lose out to the guy drilling holes in it. Everytime.

I feel this week’s article “When inclusion excludes: A counter narrative of open online education. Learning, Media and Technology” raised the most questions and concerns. It discusses all the ideal benefits which open education has been touted to have, and in particular, its inclusive and collaborative nature. What resonated with me the most is how the article provides counter arguments against these ideals and even points out the implicit negative consequences these approaches have. These overlooked reasons are why initiatives to implement open education in schools are often unsuccessful, as they are less manageable when placed in actual practice. For example, the idea that students engaged in discussion forums (after being introduced to ‘netiquette’) would be a more democratic method of learning as the environment is ‘safe’ and ‘open’, thus allowing for more diverse conversation. I would argue strongly against this concept for several reasons: 1) it’s highly unrealistic to ask students, especially online-only students, to openly share their opinions when they’re unsure how others would react to it. There’s also the lack of communication cues such as tone or posture to help elicit humor like sarcasm, making students (ought to) think twice before commenting. 2) The idea that learning from a crowd is a good thing – most social media sites are struggling to keep the influx of hate speech and misinformation from spreading. It’s also due to this ‘wisdom of the crowd’ that gave rise to anti-vaccination movement and climate change denial. Some topics are just not up for debate as one side is fueled by ignorance and aversion of factual knowledge. 3) Moderation of discussion content may seem beneficial, however it has the potential to turn it into an echo chamber of only positive statements or ones that align with the majority of the crowd; hence shutting down diversity as counterarguments would invite risk onto oneself.
While I support the movement towards open access and open education, it should be taken with a grain of salt. The concepts and current structures in place are still not well researched, given the required time to conduct analysis and scope in the field of education. Educators should refrain from jumping into full implementation without laying the groundwork such as establishing a classroom community or having the technological & pedagogical competency to guide open access learning.

An interesting point was brought up during the video conference this week about who is responsible for teaching digital citizenship. With the prevalence of the internet and social media platforms, it’s not difficult to find an individual’s information such as hobbies, interests, recent likes, etc. What’s concerning is the oversight of how posting such information can be detrimental to their themselves. Recent news reported how an employee lost their job over posting a complaint about their company, through their “anonymous” Twitter account. Growing up, we’re often told the same piece of advice: “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything”; which seems to have gone out the window as the plethora of stories about people getting fired over posts continues to grow. Which brings us back to the question of who should be responsible to introduce, remind, and outline online expectations. Being a more recent graduate from the Professional Development Program (PDP), I recall we had several workshops on professional conduct which touched upon the issue of social media presence, as well as further class discussions around concerns over past / present / future social media use. In addition, we were also taught (and repeatedly reminded by the district) that simple things such as photographs with students for yearbook, newsletters, or social media need to be treated carefully due to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA). In summary, teacher training and school districts have taken some of the responsibility in preparing teachers to recognize (and perhaps demonstrate) digital citizenship. But the next step would be whether it’s a responsibility of the teachers or parents or both to teach students about their digital footprint.

The answer isn’t straightforward as differing opinions or approaches between teachers and parents, combined with some teens’ aversion to risk assessment, results in efforts being non-productive or counter-productive. For example, parents may wish to prevent their children from accessing the internet, which would make it difficult for teachers who wish to introduce them to good practices. Parents (and teachers!) who make an effort to teach about digital literacy can sometimes be counterproductive as the other party does not practice what they preach, or make an effort to remind students to exercise good judgement before making a statement online. There’s also the belief that they cannot be identified, held accountable for their messages, or care enough about the consequences of their actions. All together, it makes the idea of “teaching” digital citizenship similar to teaching math: I can show you all these fancy symbols and numbers… but how likely will you remember any of it?

Thoughts from BlueJeans meeting (Dec 17):

• Classmate mentioned how the article, Pedagogical Models for E-Learning: A Theory-Based Design Framework, seems to suggest pedagogy for online education that are techniques which teachers at brick-and-mortar schools use in their regular class. While I agree this may seem redundant, as responsible educators would include checks and balances of student learning in online course much like the traditional face-to-face classroom, it should not be taken for granted. At the post-secondary level, the course designer and lecturer may be different individuals which would cause the latter to have minimal control over course design; preventing them from adding or editing tasks to provide synchronous meetings or asynchronous discussions. Furthermore, post-secondary lecturers are generally specialists in their field and have not been exposed to teacher training programs to have the background in any pedagogy. Therefore articles such as Dabbagh (2005) helps provide some of these tips and tricks used by every day teachers.
• It was also mentioned how online and face-to-face teaching are not that different if we can simply adapt in-person pedagogy into the online platform. As an online and blended teacher, I would have to disagree with this idea for a multitude of reasons:
  1. The most imperative difference is that online teacher has very limited options to prove who is doing the work. While there is always a mandated in-person assessment, they are far and few in-between. Evidence of learning is a simply an assignment submission with a name on it. I find quizzes are the worst indicators of learning (as a quick self-assessment & feedback) since students can guess their way through, or receive outside help as they’re doing it (speaking from experience as a tutor with 5+ years of experience).
  2. It’s difficult to build a class relations between students-students and student-teacher. Synchronous meetings often works at the post-secondary given the population is self-motivated and is shouldering the cost of education. However, the same cannot be applied to high school or elementary. Often times online students will be cross enrolled or have scheduling conflicts which prevent synchronous meetings, or ignore these opportunities given their lack of motivation and inability to see it’s immediate benefits. With this lack of connection, dialogue between students or with the teacher becomes artificial, and usually devolves into simple completion task.
  3. Some activities are highly difficult to replicate virtually, ie. Labs. While virtual labs are fairly prevalent and the majority are free, their design often follows a pre-determined sequence where students can succeed as long as they follow each step. There is no chance of failure, reflection on sources of error, or at times, consideration of the concept at work in this lab. Another important aspect is the lack of core competencies such as collaboration, personal responsibility (in group work), or social awareness that would be present in a traditional lab activity.
  4. Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs) becomes trickier navigate, in addition to course settings such as progression roadblocks. The student may not have access for support (or perhaps too much, see #1), or the course isn’t user-friendly to those who need scribes or readers. Then there’s the challenge of providing opportunities for (re)assessment when students repeatedly do not show up at arranged times due to health or other reasons. We also have no control over learning environments (or breaks) outside of school that would help improve students learning when they’re studying.
• I find myself quite humbled by the amount of behind-the-scenes work and planning that online/blended teachers need to do in order to have a “successful” course. Even having gone through PDP and learning about different pedagogy and learning theories, much of it is inapplicable (ie. class management) or difficult to effectively transfer  into an online setting (formative assessment). An instructor who is inexperienced with teaching or has only seen (poor) examples of online courses would certainly benefit from articles like Dabbagh (2005).