Category: Distributed and Open Learning

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.

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: