Category: Pedagogía

New roles for the course of Resources and ICT in Education

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

This year, I have started working with my students on something new that somehow transforms the day-to-day of our subject.

In this case, this year, we have made a change that I find important in the roles of the subject (if someone knows nothing about the roles I work with my students and is curious, here is the first definition of the roles that I shared, in this post a version interpreted by my students, this was a reform they underwent in 2018, and this was the role reform we made two years ago).

In this case, I want to optimize the roles and incorporate AI into their performance. We have settled on five more detailed roles, which aim to be much more precise in what they are supposed to do and what we intend to do with them. I present them to you as my students see them (these are their instructions as they appear in my course).

FACILITATOR

The facilitator is responsible for proactively leading the group, ensuring efficient organisation, clear communication, and a positive working environment. This role involves distributing tasks among group members, ensuring everyone understands their responsibilities, and supervising the completion of work within the established deadlines. Additionally, the facilitator reviews the group’s deliverables to ensure they meet quality standards in content, format, and style. To achieve this, they may use digital tools such as Grammarly or DeepL Write to enhance the precision and professionalism of the texts.

A key responsibility of the facilitator is to document the group’s progress through a post on the blog. This post should outline the stages of the project, the decisions made, and the milestones achieved. To make it more visually engaging, it is essential to include a timeline generated using artificial intelligence tools, effectively showcasing the group’s progress and work clearly and creatively.

I am aware that you are familiar with Canva and that ChatGPT is already a tried-and-tested tool, so I challenge you to explore and use other tools that may bring fresh perspectives. Some recommended options are:

  • TimelineJS: Ideal for creating interactive timelines based on a Google Spreadsheet. This is a university-led project, highly professional yet simple to use. https://timeline.knightlab.com/)
  • Tiki-Toki: Specialised in interactive timelines with a professional design. The free account allows for only one timeline, but you could update it incrementally with each task. (www.tiki-toki.com)
  • Preceden: A simple and effective option for planning and documenting milestones. The free account allows for unlimited timelines but with a maximum of 10 events per timeline. https://www.preceden.com/
  • Visme: Similar to Canva, this tool enables the creation of interactive timelines with a professional focus. Its freemium model offers useful basic features. (https://my.visme.co/)

The facilitator should also critically reflect on the use of these tools in the group’s work. This includes evaluating how they contributed to the group’s progress, documenting the advantages and limitations encountered, and proposing ideas to improve their application in future tasks. This reflection should form part of the blog post, encouraging a critical and responsible perspective on the use of technology.

TRANSLATOR

The translator is responsible for selecting, each week, four core concepts directly related to the weekly task. These concepts must connect to the task’s content, the type of media produced as part of the task, or the class dynamics used for presenting the task. At least one concept must address the geek component, one must relate to the methodological-pedagogical aspect, and two must focus on the activity’s theoretical framework. This role is essential for fostering a deeper understanding of critical terms, supporting the development of course competencies, and providing valuable resources for further study.

The geek component refers to technical or technological aspects of the task, including tools, platforms, software, or digital processes used during the activity. For example, if the task involves creating a video, the geek component might involve exploring video editing software or technical terms related to video production. Similarly, if the task requires online collaboration, the geek component could focus on the platforms or systems used to facilitate that process. This aspect ensures that students develop digital fluency and can navigate and leverage technology effectively.

For each concept, the translator must conduct thorough research to provide a clear, original definition written in their own words. Definitions should be concise yet comprehensive, ranging between 50 and 150 words, and must align with the specific focus of the week’s task. Alongside the definition, the translator must recommend at least two bibliographic references per concept. These references should be selected using an academic AI tool and must be relevant to the topic or its application in the task. The translator should briefly explain the relevance of each reference and why it was chosen, ensuring proper attribution and documentation of all sources.

To carry out this task effectively, the translator will use academic AI tools to identify scientific references. Recommended tools include:

The translator must also critically examine the definitions and references provided, documenting how the sources support the task and contribute to the group’s understanding. This reflection must demonstrate thoughtful engagement with the materials and highlight the role of technology in enhancing research outcomes. The aim is to create a robust resource for the group, with practical and theoretical value that directly supports the task and tompetencies of this course,. The goal is to have a good archive to study for the exam and develop future courses along the degree.

ANALYST

The analyst is responsible for conducting the final reflection of the assignment and evaluating group members’ performance each week. This role requires critical and metacognitive abilities to analyze both individual and collective learning, as well as the dynamics of the group’s teamwork.

Evaluation of Group Members’ Performance

The analyst must evaluate each group member’s contribution to the task on a weekly basis. This evaluation follows the general rules outlined below:

  • The grade will range from 1 to 5, using only whole numbers.
  • A grade of 3 (out of 5) means that the person has correctly completed their function and task part on time, without significant mistakes.
  • If all group members receive the same grade, the teacher will disregard the grade, and the analyst will be penalised.
  • Each grade must be qualitatively justified, explaining the rationale behind the mark.

At the end of each week, the analyst must submit this evaluation (both numerical and qualitative) in an online questionnaire provided through the LMS.

Team’s Final Reflection

In addition to the evaluation, the analyst is responsible for guiding and writing the final reflection of the team. This reflection should address not only what was learned about the subject content, but also about teamwork and the experience of being a teacher. The following guiding questions should be used:

  1. How did the process of working on this task match your initial expectations? Did anything surprise you about how the task was completed or how your team worked?
  2. What was the most valuable learning moment? Reflecting on your interaction with the chatbot, what insights did you gain about the work you did and the approach you took?
  3. Which skills or knowledge did you develop most effectively through this task, and how can you apply them in future activities?
  4. How confident are you that the work reflects your own ideas and contributions? Can you describe moments during the process that demonstrated this?
  5. How do the insights and learning from this task connect with your knowledge or other areas of your studies? Were there any surprising connections you discovered?

Reflection Using AI Tools

Before writing the final reflection, the analyst must complete an additional exercise using a chatbot or virtual assistant (such as ChatGPT, PromptPerfect, or Copilot). The objective of this exercise is to encourage a deeper reflection on the task. The analyst must follow the instructions included in the “self-reflection AI helper” document included in the LMS (sorry for the Blog’s readers; I’ll share it lately after testing it a bit more). Once finished the interaction, please Upload the conversation with the chatbot in the analyst questionnaire, along with the weekly evaluation and the numerical/qualitative feedback on team members’ performance. This should be submitted in the same place within the LMS. Based on the chatbot’s interaction, the analyst must perform The Team’s final reflection on what was learned during the activity.

The analyst plays a crucial role in guiding the team through reflection and metacognition. Their responsibilities go beyond evaluating the team’s performance; they are key to helping the group critically assess their progress and the application of technology in the learning process. This role ensures the team reflects on its achievements, challenges, and learning experiences, promoting a deeper understanding of the subject matter and group dynamics.

STAR

The Star is a key group member responsible for presenting the task, collecting feedback from both the professor (Linda) and peers, and using that feedback to improve the task. This role requires strong communication skills, active listening, and the ability to reflect on and constructively implement feedback.

The responsibilities of the Star are:

  1. Presenting the Task:
    The Star will present the completed task to the class, ensuring that the task’s objectives, process, and results are communicated. The presentation should be well-structured, concise, and highlight key points of the task.
  2. Collecting Feedback from the Professor (Linda):
    After the presentation, the Star will gather feedback from the professor, Linda. This feedback should focus on the task’s strengths and areas for improvement. The Star should take note of specific suggestions that can help refine the task.
  3. Collecting Feedback from Peers:
    In addition to feedback from the professor, the Star will actively seek feedback from peers. This involves asking targeted questions during or after the presentation to gather opinions on what worked well and what could be improved.
  4. Writing a Reflection Post:
    After gathering the feedback, the Star will write a detailed reflection post that includes:

    • Outcome of the task: A summary of the task, including the objectives, results, and challenges faced during the process.
    • Feedback received: A thorough account of the feedback from both Linda and peers during the presentation. This should be a balanced view, covering both positive and constructive feedback.Please provide a
    • Incorporating feedback: A detailed plan of how the feedback will be incorporated into the task to improve its quality. The Star should explain how specific suggestions will be applied and what changes will be made to enhance the final result.

Remember that I want to see feedback implemented in the different tasks in the final portfolio, so collecting and reflecting on feedback is crucial. How the input is integrated into the tasks will be an important part of the overall evaluation.

The Star is essential in promoting continuous improvement within the group. Not only does the Star present the task, but they also ensure that feedback is actively collected and applied to enhance the quality of the task. This role encourages reflection, collaboration, and a commitment to ongoing improvement.

SPOTTER

The Spotter is a key member of the group responsible for reviewing the blogs of other groups and analysing the posts of the Analysts and Translators from at least two groups in the class for the PREVIOUS task. Their mission is to identify what their group has not considered, whether concepts, reflections, or approaches, and bring new perspectives to enrich the group’s work.

The responsibilities of the Star are:

  1. Reviewing Other Groups’ Blogs: The Spotter must review the posts –from the PREVIOUS task– of the Analysts and Translators from other two groups. Rather than selecting key concepts, their task is to identify what their group has not considered in terms of concepts, reflections, or approaches that may be relevant to their team’s work.
  2. Comparative Analysis of Reflections: The Spotter must explain in their post what they have found in the reflections of other groups that their group has not considered. This includes identifying new ideas, approaches, or concepts that could enrich their group’s work and that have not been addressed up to this point.
  3. Creating an Accumulative Diagram: After performing the analysis, The Spotter must generate a diagram showing the terms worked on in each task, including the terms they have found in other groups, as well as essential aspects of what has been learned in that task, both from their group and from other groups. This diagram must grow with each task, accumulating new concepts and reflections as the activities progress. Spotter must use an online tool to create the diagram

The following free online tools are recommended for creating the diagram:

The Spotter must include (preferably embed) the diagram in their post and provide a detailed explanation of the differences and key aspects found in other groups’ work and how these can enrich their group’s work.

The spotter’s role is essential for fostering comparative analysis and learning between groups. This role ensures that the group is aware of approaches and concepts other teams are exploring, which helps enrich the team’s work and improve the quality of reflection and concepts. Additionally, as an accumulative task, the diagram will grow with each task, resulting in a complete and collaborative map by the end of the course.

We have just started. My students are in a panic after the first-week hehehehehe, but I think the work could be exciting. We’ll see.

I’ll keep you posted.

WHAT WE HAVE DONE THIS YEAR 23/24 III: AI IN THE EXAM PART 2: what do we do with AI?

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

In this post on 7 June and this video last Friday, I started this story by sharing some of my thoughts on the role of AI in my subject exam.
As I told you then, in addition to asking them to use AI to “kick-start” the exam and to tell me how they had used it, in the last part of the exam (the “metacognitive” part), I asked them to reflect on

“Your utilization of AI in developing this exam and your assessment of how your humanity complemented this process”.

I confess that, now that I think about it, the formulation of the human “complementing” was not the most accurate, but well… the thing is that I would like to share with you some of the answers that stand out -I confess that I have only taken answers from people who did a minimally coherent job and that I think reflect that use in the result of their exams- and that I have organised around 5 concrete ideas:

1. AI’s Role in Enhancing Learning and Efficiency AI has significantly enhanced the planning, creation of didactic materials, and overall learning experience for students by ensuring efficiency, accuracy, and personalized learning activities. However, the human role in interpreting AI proposals and making decisions based on experience and judgment is crucial.

“The use of AI has been crucial during the exam as it has helped me planning the activities, creating the didactic materials and making the activities more fun and dynamic in order to enhance students’ learning. Also, AI ensures efficiency and accuracy and tailors the activities to meet individual learning needs.
However, it’s important to acknowledge that I have played an important role in the creation of this project. My experience, judgment, and knowledge has allowed me to interpret the AI proposal, consider the broader context of student learning, and make important decisions of my students well-being..”

2. Limited AI Usage and Human Effort: While AI was used for specific tasks like creating rubrics and translating texts, the bulk of the work remained human-driven. The AI was mainly utilized for initial suggestions, and the human touch was essential in finalizing and personalizing the work, reflecting a general mistrust in AI’s ability to replace human input fully.
As reflected in the following paragraphs

“Apart from the part where we had to use the AI, I have only used the AI for the creation of the rubrics using PopAI and DeepL as translator. I have to admit that I didn’t modify much of the work that PopAI provided me with and I simply selected the rubrics that suited me best and discarded the ones that I found useless. Other than that, the rest of the work is entirely human.”

“In my case I have not used AI much to take this exam. I have only used it to base the creation of my evaluation rubrics for the activities I have created and to translate and summarize some texts. In any case, I have never been able to literally say what the AI says because I don’t trust it very much that it is true, plus, I always like to give my personal touch to everything I do and I never like to copy things.”

“According to the last aspect I’m proud to say that the three activities were my own idea and I didn’t use any AI to ask for them, and what I really used the AI “Chatgpt” for was to ask things once the activity was thought, as for example how to get to “universe” in Little Alchemy 2 in a short way, and what aspects should teachers evaluate on the activities for the rubric, but I also used myself, like my thoughts, and everything for asking my classmates what should we do, we resolved questions with each other instead of looking for them so I think that putting things in common is more human than searching things that could be wrong.”

3. Balancing AI Assistance and Critical Thinking: The use of AI, particularly ChatGPT, was balanced with critical thinking and personal effort. AI served as a consultative tool to assist in learning without hindering personal critical thought. The emphasis was on using AI for clarifying, rewriting, and providing initial ideas, with the final output being heavily influenced by human creativity and critical analysis.

“Another form of balance is relevant in relation to my use of AI in developing this exam. ChatGPT has been my preferred form of AI throughout this process, and I have worked to use the tool in a manner that is assisting my learning, not taking away my own thinking. That has looked like clarifying questions, asking AI to rewrite sentences or pose an initial question to, and then change and build my response from there. I believe that my humanity complemented this process in that I never want my use of AI to be hindering me from learning. I do not want this technology to be a crutch that takes away from my own critical thought. I have used AI to serve in a consultative role, assisting but not replacing my responsibilities as a student and as a person. As I navigate beyond this semester, I am determined to continue embracing new ideas, critically analyzing information, and actively exploring, ensuring that my life-long learning remains dynamic and responsive to the world around me.”

“Yeah, so, in summary, artificial intelligence got my project off the ground and technology in general was essential to fill the skills I didn’t have. But my human skills and creativity enabled me to turn it into something personal, original, and focused.”

“Lastly, regarding using ChatGPT for educational purposes, even with clear prompts, ChatGPT tends to provide general rather than educational insights. Education involves emotions and cognitive aspects that AI tools may not fully grasp. It’s crucial to consult ChatGPT for ideas, but relying solely on its information without critical reconstruction can lead to misunderstandings.”

4. AI as a Supplement to Human Decision-Making and Personalization: AI generated ideas and suggestions, particularly for student profiles and activities. However, the final decisions were made based on human judgment and experience. Personalizing educational content was a key aspect where human insight was indispensable, ensuring that activities were engaging and relevant to students.

“I’ve used ChatGPT to ask for and receive suggestions. That’s to say I asked ChatGPT if I was right, if I could do this thing in a more appealing way, if I could do this other thing in a more attractive/engaging way. We all know that AI is wonderful and it can do everything you want it to do. However, I think that ChatGPT is not going to be able to do some things and being a teacher is one of those. My humanity completed this process by thinking in the things that I would have loved to do when I was a student. I think that being a teacher implies having like another sense. And you have to bear in mind always that you once were there, you once were a student and I would have loved to create a StopMotion when I was learning the European countries, for example, or to use Augmented Reality to see the different pieces of art all along history. So, I think it’s really important to never forget that you once were a student and to do what you think your students are going to enjoy.”

“As far as AI is concerned, I have used it especially to add ideas to the characteristics and abilities of my imaginary students, something that has been really useful for me as it has contribute to the amplification of the profile of my learners, allowing me to see some aspects that didn’t come into my mind at the moment…but also to develop my original idea for the activity. At every moment, and as we have had the opportunity to see in the initial video, I have tried to bring my personal and human touch to this process by changing or concretizing certain aspects proposed by the AI.”

5. Ethical Use of AI and Human Emotional Support: The ethical use of AI is paramount, as it can easily overstep into areas that should be driven by human morals and creativity. AI lacks the capacity for empathy and emotional support, which are essential in education. The human role in maintaining moral standards, providing emotional support, and ensuring the learning process remains effective and genuine is highlighted as crucial.

“The AI has been able to help me a lot in this exam to organize myself to take it in the best possible way and to give me some ideas that have been very useful to me. But it is obvious that artificial intelligence does not have the capacity to express empathy or comprehension, and emotional support that only humans can offer effectively.”

“The most important one from my point of view was the correct utilization of AI. We used it several times during this course, including during this exam. AI can be a very dangerous tool, as it can be used to create entire projects, essays, works, etc. Because of that, it is essential to have our morals in mind. If we use AI in the wrong way, the process of learning will be completely lost, that’s why during the realization of this exam I tried to use the AI for only inspiration purposes, as I wanted to test how my abilities were and how far my imagination for creating this project could go. If we use it in the right way, AI can be one of our best friends when creating and developing everything we can imagine.”

“And finally, the last question, that is, what kind of AI I have used to develop this project and also how my humanity has complemented this process. Well, I have used Schemely and Magic School to develop this project. Schemely to ask for different activities or different ideas of activities that I could develop. And Magic School to develop and create my students’ evaluation rubric. I think that my humanity has complemented this process because maybe the AI can give you many answers, but there are no answers if there are no questions. And for example, in Schemely I took into account the necessities of my students, the age they were and the contents that I wanted to teach them, I was the one deciding if I wanted to use that activity or not. And in magic classroom, I was the one who put the criteria that I wanted, the marks that I wanted, I was the one designing everything. But AI just helps us.”

“Also, this course has helped me to understand that artificial intelligence is very useful but it is only a tool or a help. Our humanity is crucial to our jobs and especially in primary school teaching. In this project I have done a lot of different questions to Chat GPT. For example, about the interest of my children but then I have to make a lot of changes to best fit with my beliefs or tastes.”

Many of their testimonies make me optimistic, and others remind me of clichés that we have read in 40 of the thousands of reports on AI that have appeared worldwide over the 1.5 years since ChatGPT appeared, but they continue to make me think.

For now, we close the review of what we have done this year with this flavour of mouth that should open the appetizer to put more ideas on the table next year.

WHAT WE HAVE DONE THIS YEAR 23/24 II: AI in the exam part 1 or reluctance to go back and forth

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Last year, we introduced AI into the subject’s activities. In fact, as I told you in a video last year, the implementation strategy had been good, and I thought it was the right way to go.

This year I felt I should continue along the same path, so I tried to continue with this idea. In all the assignments of the course, AI was introduced in one way or another as an “advisor”, to brainstorm initial ideas or to develop resources with a more or less careful prompt refinement process.

However, in an attempt to be coherent, the exam had to be aware of AI and appropriate it in a more complex process. That is why I introduced Resources and ICT in the exam.

How did I introduce it? Well, I did it in two moments:

This was the first part of the exam, which is worth half of the exam I was telling you:

Your mission is to develop a teaching project for an imaginary group of primary school students. The project should incorporate technology to enhance learning. Your task is to design an assignment where students will actively engage with at least three different technologies, with at least two of them being chosen from the following options: Comic/Images, Augmented Reality, Stop-Motion, Robots/Programming. The aim is for students to actively create using these technologies rather than passively consume content. You have the flexibility to create one comprehensive activity or three –or more– connected activities, depending on your preference.

  1. Then, first, please describe the Initial Details:
  • Age of Students: Specify the age group of your imaginary students.
  • Curriculum Goals: Define the educational objectives aligned with the Spanish (or your original country’s) core curriculum that students will achieve through this project.
  • Student Profile: Describe the characteristics and abilities of your imaginary students.
  1. AI Inquiry: With these initial details, consult your preferred AI tool what to do (please record this interaction in a video and show it in your video exam). And then, before continuing with part 3, justify -in general- if you will do changes of the AI proposal or not.
  2. Project Execution: And now, for every part of the project:
  • Clearly outline the steps students will follow to complete the assignment.
  • Show in the video how to do the task and how the final artefact (product) looks.
  • Explain the added value of incorporating digital tools into the project.
  • Detail how you will assess the task and provide a rubric for grading the assignment.
  • Assess the chosen apps/tools (all of them) based on their privacy, data protection, and rights policies following the Rubric for eLearning Tool Evaluation? Address the concerns identified.
  • Utilize the ACAD Framework to articulate the learning design of your project, either by parts or in its entirety. You can use the physical toolkit or the virtual one.

As an “exam,” my students sent me this exercise in video format and also sent me the transcript, including references, detailed laws, and so on.

And what happened?

Well, I have the feeling that AI has harmed the performance of a sector of my students that is precisely the one most in need of other types of help… Let me see if I can explain myself clearly:

There are some brilliant, VERY good, VERY well-done exams for which the AI helped them to improve their perspective a lot… They are those students who are very bright and hard-working and who go all out in their exams… the AI has been an interesting resource that has enriched their work, although I confess that less than I expected.

But that’s not the majority of the student body. What happened to the others?

Well, what I should have foreseen would happen: First of all, the students “translated” the assignment, not in language, they simplifyied it (yes, that’s the theory I always keep in mind, in theory)… but instead of doing it themselves, most of them asked ChatGPT (or their favourite AI, there are several) to “translate” my exam for them (What do I have to do if my teacher asks me for…”, and what did the AI do? The predictable thing is that it turned the exam wording into its simplest and most superficial formulation, skipping all the details and nuances that make a final exam a final test of competencies…

And what did the students do? They took that simplification and, without changing almost anything, put it back into the AI and asked it to give them the answer…

The result? Yes, a disaster… very nice videos, but with “clay legs” underneath… no contextualisation, no objectives or competences to develop, generic students, generic apps in generic classes, kids who do nothing and apps that only decorate the classroom… almost always standardised… but with little foundation.

In short! little humanity… a lot to think about…

I also asked them to reflect a bit on the role of AI in their exam… but that’s another story, and this post is already too long, so in two weeks, I’ll tell you about it…

What we have done this year 23/24 I: UDL in Resources & ICT

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

https://www.lindacastaneda.com/mushware/rolesupdate2/Every year in the course Resources and ICT in Education for students in the bilingual English group of the Degree in Primary Education, I feel the responsibility to improve how we work on the course fundamental issues that affect the idea of ” Offer students information tools, learning strategies and cognitive mechanisms that allow them to start developing their teaching competence for the digital world and continue developing it autonomously or guided -according to their needs-, throughout their professional performance” (yes, desert sand in a bottle… hehehehe…), so, as a result of this desire to improve, I am introducing changes, and I share with you some of the tasks we do.

Therefore, this is the first in a series of “what we have done this year” posts for the 2023-2024 academic year, and no, in this first one, we are NOT going to talk about AI; we are going to talk about universal design.

I confess that although I always try to include “something” related to the importance of the “inclusive” perspective of technologies in my students’ assignments (thanks to the insistence and the always positive influence of my partner Javier Soto), the truth is that I have the impression that it was always a kind of “patch”, that I never ended up finding a way to make it “tangible”. I care a lot that the tasks I propose to my students are authentic, and that means that they allow them to put the competence they should develop (start to develop, to be more precise) in a way that is as realistic as possible but also trying to build bridges with other fields of knowledge of the profession, without getting too involved in the work of other courses and without neglecting my own work (that of my course, I mean).

Well, this year I came across an idea that I really liked to work with my students on the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework in the context of educational technology (no, I am not discussing whether UDL is or is not, research already has sufficient evidence of the effectiveness of UDL elements to improve teachers’ competence in inclusive classrooms, foster students’ abilities to value diversity and promote accessible lesson planning and delivery skills, and more).

I proposed that, in groups, they analyse in depth one of the tasks I had proposed to them during the course in light of the UDL proposals (strengths and problems) and also make suggestions (I asked them for at least three on three different aspects) on how I could improve the universality of my instructional design. The analysis was presented in the last class session in a speed-learning format (we start and finish the course with this dynamic to try to see how we have changed).

The result was very interesting. In general, you can notice many things in work done at the end of the term like this: You can notice that we know each other better (within groups, between groups, they know the teacher better, and they know what she expects from them), you can notice that they have been thinking about “the same” things for a while, and I also think that the task gives rise to very interesting analyses for them and for me.

In their presentations, they discussed technology, TPACK, tools, multimodality, digital competence, and accessibility. They also discussed pedagogical design and thinking from the student’s perspective. They tried (timidly) to criticize my teaching designs, and at the same time, they gave me ideas to enrich them.

Next time, I think I should focus the activity more on the search for technological or didactic alternatives to the problems they have encountered so I can focus more on the subject. But I like the task; I think it is appropriate to introduce it at this point of the course (at the end), which has a metacognition point by analysing the tasks proposed above.

Scheme used by the VELVET team in their speed-learning of task 10 https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/9OHcuRqtyMxq5GgtNuGMGmfgqU-WIGkiXOJmp9BXXYetqLK-xGhNs7GcHmuzzNJcJLAxahAg-XMBgIlcTG4lqqcRB78lq6-uKPV6oRZ3ldFPuGgPTkYq7N8dSKYxzCre=w1280

DISCLAIMER: To contextualize, I work with my students in a subject organised around weekly cooperative tasks every year I try to publish the instructions of the tasks I propose to my students (when the 23/24 ones are published, I will post them here), but I leave you some previous posts that can give more context if you feel like it:

Un catálogo de herramientas con clasificación ética y de privacidad

Replanteando los roles de la asignatura (actualización)

ACAD Toolkit Print&play in Spanish for starters

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Over the last few years, we have been immersed in the fascinating world of ACAD (Activity Centered Analysis and Design Framework), exploring its possibilities and above all looking for ways to invite more people to use these kinds of tools that we believe are interesting for thinking together about teaching and learning situations.

This journey led us to translate the ACAD toolkit into Spanish, a collaborative work led by Goodyear, Peter; Carvalho, Lucila; Yeoman, Pipa; Castañeda, Linda, & Adell, Jordi (2021), which provided us with a solid basis for our work.

In addition, we recently shared the fruits of our labour in a detailed study, reflected in the publication by Carvalho, Lucila, Linda Castañeda, & Pippa Yeoman (2023) entitled ‘The “Birth of Doubt” and “The Existence of Other Possibilities”: Exploring How the ACAD Toolkit Supports Design for Learning’ in the Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research. This study delves into how the ACAD toolkit supports design for learning, providing valuable insight into its applicability and benefits.

However, as we progressed in our research, we realised a significant obstacle: manually creating a toolkit (all those handwritten letters) tailored to the specific needs of an individual or institution required considerable effort. It was then that the idea of developing a “starter” version of the ACAD toolkit was born, at least of its Spanish version, with the aim of making this powerful tool more accessible.

Trying to remain faithful to the spirit of the original toolkit, we created a downloadable document, similar to the print&play that we have designed in the DALI project. This document allows anyone interested to download, print and use the ACAD toolkit in a practical and efficient way. We recognise that, although the printed boxes have their charm (and we have printed a few), the print&play format presents itself as the most useful option for those who are looking for a quick and adaptable solution and who read us from anywhere in the world.

The print&play has instructions on what and how to print it… and we think it is VERY convenient.

imagen del print&play de ACAD toolkit en castellanoimagen del print&play de ACAD toolkit en castellano

We want this starter version of the ACAD toolkit to be a gateway for educators, instructional designers and teaching professionals. We believe that by making these tools available to everyone, we are helping to democratise instructional design and foster innovation in pedagogy.

I am really pleased to share this resource with the community. You can find the downloadable document at https://digitum.um.es/digitum/bitstream/10201/135851/1/ACADToolkit_Espanol_P%26P.pdf (the permanent link to the UM repository is http://hdl.handle.net/10201/135851 ) and we encourage you to explore the possibilities offered by the ACAD toolkit on your journey towards continuous improvement in teaching and learning.

Download, print and discover the potential of the ACAD toolkit today!

Referencess:

  • Goodyear, P., Carvalho, L., Yeoman, P., Castañeda, L., & Adell, J. (2021). Una herramienta tangible para facilitar procesos de diseño y análisis didáctico: Traducción y adaptación transcultural del Toolkit ACAD. *Píxel-Bit. Revista De Medios Y Educación.* [DOI: 10.12795/pixelbit.84457](https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.84457)
  • Carvalho, L., Castañeda, L., & Yeoman, P. (2023). ‘The “Birth of Doubt” and “The Existence of Other Possibilities”: Exploring How the ACAD Toolkit Supports Design for Learning’. *Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 12*(2), 340–359. [DOI: 10.7821/naer.2023.7.1494](https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2023.7.1494)

(I want you to know that ChatGPT gave me a hand writing this post -I never have time to blog- and deepl helped me with the translation…)

ACAD toolkit impreso "bonito"

High Level Group of Education and Training Meeting

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

In May, during my participation in a conference in Barcelona (EDuTech Cluster Conference) I was asked by the Ministry of Education and in particular by Acción Educativa Exterior to participate as a Speaker for the EU High Level Group on education and training in the first event of the Spanish presidency of the European Council.

This meeting (Jerez de la Frontera, 29 June 2023) was the first event prior to the start of the Spanish presidency of the EU and focused on two fundamental issues: European values and digital transformation. For this reason, they asked two people: a German colleague who gave a presentation on artificial intelligence and values, and myself, who gave a presentation on the digital transformation of the classroom, to participate with papers for the discussion.

The ministry asked me for a vision of what the research says about the integration of technology in the classroom, trying to overcome the more catastrophic or naive views of transformation, but always based on research. It was 25 minutes of presentation and 1 hour of conversation with the members of the High Level Group. Here is my full slide presentation (there are many slides that I skipped due to time constraints)

2023 Higher Level Group of Education and Training from Linda Castañeda

Most of the elements are familiar to those of you who have read my work, basically because I don’t pretend to invent the wheel and because I think it is worth trying to be coherent in my discourse. Moreover, much of it is precisely the result of the research I have carried out over the years (here is the list of bibliography that I also referred to https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gOiEZvqRQmKbe6hsdPAMv6qOp1H3nETpYDtnkBUS0UY/edit?usp=sharing) .

The truth is that it is probably the most intimidating experience I have had in terms of responsibility and protocol, but it was also a fantastic moment to be able to contribute in some way to a debate that goes beyond my immediate context and before an audience that has a lot of work to do and that expects your speech to be of some use to them… I have learned a lot doing it, preparing it, eating nerves, and being there.

As I said in the chronicle I made of this moment on Instagram (Instagram video only in Spanish https://www.instagram.com/reel/CucdHG2uuVK/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== ), I think it went well, I feel honoured and proud, I sincerely hope at least I have not given ideas to make the European policy of digital transformation in education worse and I have contributed in some way to this debate. So far, I have learned a lot.

 

Digital Teacher Framework (validation 1)

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

This October an article has been published in which we take one of the first steps to validate the teaching competence model for the digital world. In this article we translate the original framework (which was justified and proposed by Francesc Esteve, Jordi Adell and myself in two articles in 2018) into English and we also propose a first step in its validation with the good fortune that Professor Sarah Prestridge, from Griffith University, joined our team.

Castañeda, Linda, Francesc Marc Esteve-Mon, Jordi Adell, and Sarah Prestridge. (2021). ‘International Insights about a Holistic Model of Teaching Competence for a Digital Era: The Digital Teacher Framework Reviewed’. European Journal of Teacher Education 0 (0). Routledge: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1991304. Post-print abierto y disponible AQUÍ. 2021_EJTE_Postprint

This validation involved primary and secondary teachers from three different international contexts (Uruguay, Australia and Spain), who were asked about each of the components we proposed in 2018 (Generator and manager of emerging pedagogical practices; Expert in digital pedagogical content; Augmented reflective practitioner; Expert in enriched personal and organisational learning environments; Sensitive to the use of technology from the perspective of social engagement and Able to use technology to expand their relationship with the student’s family and environment). We asked these individuals about their understanding of each of these elements, their views on the relevance of these elements to their teaching and the extent to which they believe they have scope in their school to develop innovative practices related to that element of the model.

The responses were frankly interesting and are explained in the text. As a result of these contributions, and the analysis of them, we not only validated the 6 original elements of the model, but we grouped the elements two by two into three categories that you can see in the following illustration:

There are many more things to work on in this framework… we believe that the framework itself is an opportunity for conversation about what really matters when we talk about teaching at a time like the present, and for that reason alone it is worthwhile. I think we can learn a lot along the way, and we sincerely hope that you will find it interesting to analyse it, or to read some of the work we do on it…

If you want to see the antecedents of the model you can find them in these two publications (only in Spanish I’m afraid):

Ethics & Privacy criteria Webtools catalogue

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

In one of the courses I teach at my university called “Resources and ICT in education” -for students in the 1st year of the Primary Education Degree-, one of the most remarkable challenges is going beyond the instrumental training on ICT and effectively integrating the competencies for helping them to become a real Teacher Competent in the Digital era. And from this challenge, one of the most difficult parts, beyond the use of technology and even beyond the pedagogical implementation of technology, is helping them to address and manage an ethical and critical perspective of the use of technology, and of the technology itself.

Well, with the aim of working on this part of the course’s competencies, this year I propose to my students a specific assignment  (just before the Easter break) in which they explored the relationship between privacy, ethics and the tools they used, or those they intended their future students to use. Let me tell you the story:

After a mandatory introduction to the topic made in f2f class (more regarding the topic awareness than any kind of profound theoretical content), the first thing they had to do individually -and at home- was:

Watching 2 videos :

Then, they had to choose ONE tool (the one they wanted, a game, an app, a web tool) and pass the next two tools to it:

Then in class, in groups (6-7 each), they shared their findings and agreed (they did it, I was just there) on how to convert the results of these tool rubrics into a 1 to 5 stars tools rating (I have to point out the MANY interesting discussions that took place in that session).

As a final task, together they collectively create a GDocs including the analysed tools, with a short description and the tool’s rating from this star rating privacy perspective, and a link to the completed rubric.

Photo of the document in Google Drive with link to Google Drive

Furthermore, from that moment onwards and for the rest of the course, in ALL the assignments (including the exam), they were forced to include every tool they use in the tasks in the catalogue, and reflecting about the ethical perspective, so that it would not only be useful for this course now, but could also be useful for them, and why not for other teachers, in the future.

Until the 25th of May (the day of their final exam), they have included the classification of more than 75 tools and I hope that, having incorporated it into the way they work with technology, it will be useful as a revival of their approach to technology

Do I agree with their classification of the tools? is it correct? I think it doesn’t matter (sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t) but students have made decisions, they have analysed the tools, they have understood how classification works, what a rubric is, what some privacy criteria are… maybe when they finish their degree there will be other criteria or other perspectives… but the most important is that maybe some of those students will consider that these issues are important… and they will continue searching… maybe for some of them, some of this will start to be part of their PLE…

It is important to note that the important thing about this post is NOT the catalogue itself, which may be useful to someone or not. What is actually important is THE ACTIVITY, the TASK and what my students got out of it….

Next year maybe we’ll do another one… but it will be with other people… another river.

Very proud of my students… as always…

Students’Task: A Podcast about The Hour of Coding

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Computational thinking and developments in educational robotics are part of the content of the subject I work on with students in the first year of the degree in primary education. However, this year, due to the working conditions with the students (blended learning and express prohibition of any kind of physical interaction or exchange of materials in the face-to-face sessions), it was difficult for me to think about how to get them to explore the subject, to see its possibilities and not just a “theoretical” approach to the issue.

So I decided to propose as a weekly task an exploration of the activities of The Hour of Code, a project that is helping teachers all over the world to get introduced to coding as an introduction to Computational Thinking. My proposal (which is framed in the group working conditions, by performance roles that some of you already know) included that they should:

  • try at least three activities from https://hourofcode.com/us/gb/learn. Choose the three of them from those classified on Grades 2 to 5. Choose at least one to be used on Poor or not internet conditions, and another with NO computers or devices; the third one do not have more requirements.
  • Collecting evidences of the process and document the experience in your performance blog.
  • Answer some questions such as: What level would be appropriate for this? What is(are) the objective(s) of this task follow the Bloom Taxonomy? What content/standard from the curriculum would be suitable to be developed with this activity? What is the added value of using digital tools in this case? What ethical problems could you (or your students or the parents) find doing this activity in the classroom? What changes do you need to make to allow your students to do it from home?

All the weekly assignments we do in class are presented to the rest of the class members in big group sessions so that we can receive feedback and also learn from each other’s work, but we try to do each of these presentations in a format that is also set up as subject content. So, this time we tried something different, I asked the groups to create, during the class period (and without any prior training), a podcast about their experience.

When I gave them the instructions for the assignment I told them that they should make a podcast in class but I did not tell them the conditions of the content. The same day of the class, I gave them the conditions which were that they should create a radio programme (in the audio tool -podcast or audio, social network- of their choice) and that this programme should tell the story of the assignment and must include:

  • Welcome and goodbye clips
  • An advertisement for the Webpage “The Hour of Code.”
  • Two main clips:
    • Interview regarding the experience
    • A story about your experience
  • A reflection about the importance of using this kind of activities in the classroom.

The complete duration of the radio program can not exceed 15 minutes and must be of mínimum 8 minutes.

You already know that I am a big fan of my students, so I want to share with you the artifacts they have presented, not only because I have been surprised by their self-confidence and good work, but also because the content of the reflections of my students has pleasantly surprised me (I insist that they are works made in less than 2 hours of work and WITHOUT previous experience in podcasting).

Here you have got some of them to listen to ;-):


Click on the pictures to listen to the podcasts 😉

Congrats to my students!! I’m very proud of you!!

At the end of the course, I’ll publish all the task guides that I have used this year.

Methods and Theories for Innovative Critical Research on Educational Technology

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

For years we have been thinking that the methodological tools and fundamental theoretical approaches of educational technology have fallen short of what we need. Educational technology, as a field of knowledge, as a workspace and as a market, has changed and we need to approach it differently.

For this reason, more than a year ago, at the invitation of the team of the NAER (New Approaches in Educational Research) Journal, together with Professor Ben Williamson from the University of Edinburgh, we undertook the work of trying to bring together some articles that would substantially address not only what changes are needed, but also shed light on how to carry out these changes.

The idea was to get people who have been working with ” Methods and Theories for Innovative Critical Research on Educational Technology” for a long time to come up with fundamental questions on the subject. Here you have the editorial “Assembling New Toolboxes of Methods and Theories for Innovative Critical Research on Educational Technology” signed by Ben and me (and here translated into Spanish), in which we explain some of the thoughts that encouraged us to start this work.

The result is a special section in NAER’s Vol. 10, issue 1  which has just been published. The section consists of 5 articles, some of which make committed and activating approaches from a theoretical point of view and others that break down methodological aspects and approaches that can be used by us, researchers in Educational Technology, to try to do things in other ways… I sincerely invite you to read them all:

I would like to sincerely thank NAER’s Editorial team for their trust and for keeping the magazine open, without cost to the authors and with very high quality in these complicated times. In addition, I would like to thank the authors for their extraordinary work and Prof. Ben Williamson – whose work I deeply admire – for lending himself to this adventure so generously. I have learned a lot in this endeavour and I can only be grateful for that.

I wish these papers could suggest as many things to you as they do to me… I would be delighted to have a good conversation on these subjects… hope to have the occasion soon.

Remain safe and sane…

Update, the performance roles we carry on in class

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

This is an update regarding the roles my students perform in class. My previous posts are from 2014 and 2016, this is an extract from a published paper (just in Spanish): Castañeda, L. (2019) Initial teacher training in the educational use of technology, a pedagogical proposal. Quaderns Digitals, 89. 1-49. http://www.quadernsdigitals.net/index.php?accionMenu=hemeroteca.VisualizaArticuloIU.visualiza&articulo_id=11517  pages 31 and following.

I hope it would be interesting

“The roles that articulate the work of the groups in my course have changed over the years. They are designed to be exercised in a unipersonal way (with some exceptions especially in the figure of the star), they are assigned discretionally by the members of the team using the method that they consider more appropriate but with some restrictions, namely: first that the assignment of the roles is valid for one week, that the same role can only be exercised for one task at a time, and that they must rotate so that all the members of the team go through each of the roles, at least, once during the four-month period.

The main function of the roles has to do with the development of the general competences of the degree, which in turn are closely connected to the transversal competences of the University of Murcia, corresponding approximately in this way:

  1. Role of Facilitator-Administrator:

Considered as a role of help to the conformation and functioning of the group (Johnson et al., 1999), and with evident inspiration in the roles of moderator in some of the proposals (De Wever et al, 2010), the person in charge of performing this role acts as the group leader, being responsible for distributing the task, mediating in conflicts, making sure the work is done, motivating and encouraging the work of their colleagues. In addition, this role is in charge of maintaining the blog and all the group’s sites on the social web, as well as reviewing format, spelling and grammar associated with the group’s work.

  1. Role of Historian-Chronicler:

He is in charge of making a weekly chronicle of what has happened during the week in the group. He/she is in charge of documenting everything that happens in the group, having the freedom to do his/her task in the format he/she considers most appropriate, and the students are encouraged to “tell the stories” of their groups using the variety of formats allowed by ICT.  It is hoped that such a chronicle can serve, in addition to the teacher’s obvious process evaluation purposes, the group as a field notebook and record that will enable them to make decisions about whether to maintain or modify their own internal work dynamics.

This role, which we can include within the roles that “help the group to function” (Johnson et al., 1999), insofar as it allows them to maintain a record of activities that it is hoped can be useful for monitoring the group’s work.

In addition, the role of the historian is to explore sites of interest that may be of interest either for the development of the subject or for the training of class members as teachers. The commitment includes references in the blog, at least, a website of WITHIN the class and another one of OUTSIDE the class, making reference to the reasons of the election and also leaving a comment in the site that is an object of review.

  1. Role of Curator:

The curator is in charge of compiling and organizing in a schematic way all the sources of information that the group has used for the development of the activity. In addition, he or she must be in charge of sequencing the documentation indicating the process carried out and linking and referencing (according to APA standards) this documentation in a schema (mind map) so that this mechanism allows students to make a representation of a part of the cognitive structure they have set up for the specific task (McKeachie et al., 1987, p. 15).

We can also include this role within the roles that “help the group to function” (Johnson et al., 1999), although sometimes it assumes a unifying role of the work of all (summarizer of (De Wever et al., 2010), it is also true that its role does not include a true synthesis, but a compilation of resources that are expected to be useful beyond the subject itself.

  1. Role of the Translator

Inspired by roles such as theoritician from other proposals such as that of De Wever et al. (2010), this role can be classified by its function, among those that help students to formulate what they know and to integrate it, as well as those that aim to encourage students’ thinking and improve their reasoning (Johnson et al., 1999).

The translator is in charge of defining each week the 5 central terms related to the subject that have been worked on in the activity. This role takes on a special relevance since the student has to be in charge not only of selecting which are the 5 substantive topics that are talked about that week but also of reworking and building those key terms. In the role instructions, the students are given a special emphasis on the need to “dialogue” with the authors, referring specifically to the possibility of “borrowing” someone else’s words, but making them flow in our discourse, properly referenced.

But, in addition, in this role a specific question is included that will have to be included in the post to greater of the 5 terms and that is referred to which are the less brilliant sides of the thematic, methodology or tool that has been approached in the task and which decisions on which aspects, should be made explicit to obtain the best possible implementation scenario or, at least, to avoid unwanted influences in the educative processes. This question is intended to elaborate on the specific content of the Subject Competence: “critical analysis of educational technology”.

  1. Role of Analyst:

Inspired by the role of Analyst described in some of the works referred to in Strijbos and De Laat (2010), the analyst is the role responsible for making the final reflection of the work and also make the weekly evaluation of the performance of group members.

The performance evaluation is carried out following a generic rubric, in which the analysts are expected to assess the contribution of each of the group members, and. at the end of the workweek, each of the analysts must include this assessment (numerical and qualitative) in an ad-hoc online questionnaire.

In addition to this assessment, as we have said before, the analyst is in charge of making the final reflection of the team, in which he/she should include comments on what they have learned about the contents of the subject, as well as about the group work and the exercise of being a teacher in general. To increase the quality of these reflections, the first week of work includes a workshop with the students dedicated to reflection and the different levels of reflection that they should handle during the course, so that they know what is expected of them and value the importance of interconnecting ideas by attributing causes to their statements, proposing dialogical relationships and above all assuming with a critical sense, what the contribution of their activity is to their learning process, in the educational and social framework in which they are developing.

This is surely one of the most important roles in the job since he is in charge of reflecting on the work, paying attention to the work done in the other roles, seeing what aspects they have dealt with, thinking about how they have worked and agreeing with their colleagues on a reflection on what they have learned. In the end, he is in charge of making explicit and agreeing on the process of reflection and meta-cognition of the team.

  1. Role of the Star:

The role of the star is to present to the whole class the final product of the weekly tasks, attending to the requirements specified by each task.

It is important to emphasize that, although all the members of the group should be involved in the achievement of the task, it is always the star that each week showed a higher level of interest. During the development of the subject, we have observed how it is the role in which more information is sought for the final achievement of the task.”

Extract from Castañeda, L. (2019) Initial teacher training in the educational use of technology, a curricular proposal. Quaderns Digitals, 89. 1-49. http://www.quadernsdigitals.net/index.php?accionMenu=hemeroteca.VisualizaArticuloIU.visualiza&articulo_id=11517  pages 31 and following

My course during CoVid-19 crisis confinment

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Since the beginning of the confinement as a consequence of the CoVid-19 global pandemic crisis (buff… written like this it is more noticeable how terrible what we are living through), I wanted to join other teachers who have already done it and tell you a little bit about what the change of situation has meant for my teaching. That’s why I made this video.

Relatively recently I published an open article in which I try to explain in some detail how my usual teaching of the subject has continued during this time:

Castañeda, L. (2019) Formación inicial del profesorado en el uso educativo de la tecnología, una propuesta curricular. Quaderns Digitals, 89. 1-49. http://www.quadernsdigitals.net/index.php?accionMenu=hemeroteca.VisualizaArticuloIU.visualiza&articulo_id=11517

I know everything is just in Spanish, but if you can, try it.

Although I said in the video that I was going to put the details of the exam here, I think I will make a specific post when I have received some feedback from my students, who I will present it to this week, but I will publish it, that’s for sure, and when I do this it will be in both languages, not in vain my course is actually taught in English,

By the way, I took the opportunity to try the vertical format of the videos and I confess that I don’t like it, but well, it has been an experience.

I appreciate any suggestion or comment you may want to make, as long as it is constructive, so I can learn more.

C4P: Educational Technology in Higher Education: Emergent Practices for Teaching Future Educators.

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Dr Leigh Graves and myself have the privilege of work as guest editors of an Speical Issue of the UTE Journal (UTE (Universitas Tarraconensis. Revista de Ciencias de la Educación) which aims to bring together extraordinary educational experiences, focused on the training of educators to take on the impact of technologies at different educational levels. The Special Issue will be titled:

Educational Technology in Higher Education: Emergent Practices for Teaching Future Educators

And we cordially invite researchers, faculty and Higher Education trainers involved in educators’ training to submit their papers and help us with this effort. To be considered for this Special Issue papers would take into account the following considerations:

  • Papers must be based on a higher education teaching practice with a profound educational/epistemological base, (not ICT-only focused implementations).
  • Clear pedagogical description (where does this practice come from? What are the theoretical or epistemic supports of this approach?).
  • Clear practical description (how many students by class, online/face2face, year at the university).
  • Sharing viewpoints of all stakeholders involved in the practice (teachers, students, administrators)
  • Strong theoretical and pedagogical conclusions
    • Why is this practice innovative in educational terms?
    • What does this practice “add”, “change”, “improve?”
    • What’s next?

The manuscripts can be written in Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese, French and English and should be original, those can be accepted for publication if they have not been published before, nor submitted for review to other scientific journals.

Universitas Tarraconensis. Journal of Educational Sciences (UTE) is a scientific journal published twice a year the Department of Pedagogy of the Rovira i Virgili University of Tarragona. It is an open-access journal reviewed by experts. Its main thematic line is educational research. Its main objective is to contribute to the development of the Sciences of Education and to promote the dissemination of new methodologies and approaches to the teaching and learning of science, responding to the challenges of 21st-century society. To ensure the publication of quality articles, the journal applies a rigorous editorial process and follows the Open Journal System (OJS) model that supports the open-access academic publication.

ISSN: 1135-1438. Indexed: DICE, CIRC, CARHUS+2014, DIALNET, Latindex.

Further instructions for submission of manuscripts: https://revistes.urv.cat/index.php/ute/about/submissions

Timeline: 

  • Opening Call for papers: 1st of October 2019
  • Deadline: 30th of March 2020

Due to the tough times we are living around the world and the stressfull last month, the Special Issue decided to extend its deadline until 30th of June. 

  • Feedback: 30th of June 2020
  • Publication: 1st of November 2020

Here is the complete call in English. If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact us.

Holistic Visions About Teaching and Learning for the Digital Era

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

On September 23rd I had the opportunity to make the first conference of this 2019-2020 academic year of the series sponsored by the UC Berkeley’s Graduate Group in Science and Mathematics Education (SESAME) and the Graduate School of Education of the University of California Berkeley.

The session, called Holistic Visions About Teaching and Learning for the Digital Era, was the culmination of my research stay at UC Berkeley and gave me the opportunity to share with other faculty members some of my recent concerns and projects.

I’ll share with you the video of the talk in case you’re interested.

I have to confess that it is always an immense challenge to make a presentation to an audience like this (in such a pretigious institution), and that it is especially complicated when it seems that you don’t even have everything so clear (I almost always have many more questions than answers). However, the conditions were ideal: the invitation, the context, the wonderful presentation of Professor Jabari Mahiri and the participation of colleagues with their questions, helped me to make this presentation a new learning opportunity for me in this privileged context.

Today I am back in Murcia, on September 30th  (the day before yesterday) we closed this fantastic time in Berkeley and I’m back home with the suitcase full of learnings and new friends. Thank you all for making it possible. It’s time to continue.

If you are curious about how it has been this stay, I leave a link to the video blog that I have done these months in my visiting’s blog (only in spanish) https://lindacq.blogspot.com/

Un dia en el cole de mi maestro

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

The next three weeks, my students will have a fantastic opportunity to work with real students from the schools who come to visit us at the Faculty of Education. Each group will be at our faculty one morning and will be with us (my group are students of the first year of the degree in Primary School, in the course of  “Resources and ICT in education”) from 10:30 to 11:30 on Tuesday (each Tuesday we will work with different students).

This is a VERY punctual experience, but for my first year students I think it can be a perfect first contact with the students and also serve as an excuse to approach three technologies that can be used in the classroom (in this case we are going to use: stop-motion, augmented reality and robotics), and since we do not have robots for everyone, we have decided that each week 3 class groups work with a different activity on a rotational basis.

To try to make the most of this opportunity, I have asked my students to work with the students on Tuesday on an activity predesigned by me, open, small (minimum), adjusted, but for which they must plan the strategy to do it in practice. For each of the activities, I have given them a general guide to developing with the students and they, as teachers, have to prepare all the materials, resources, spaces, etc., to do it.

The idea is that, once we finish the activities with the students here (after March 26), my students will have also to develop three similar activities for an imaginary group of students. That is, one using stop-motion, one using augmented reality and one using robots. Those activities that they create later must be different from the ones I give them to use with the little ones, and they will be what they will exhibit this year in our traditional May fair.

The goal is for you to pay close attention to the details of the work of the next 3 Tuesdays and to the problems and ideas of the children who will be working with us.

This is the distribution of the activities to develop these days:

  5th of March 12th of March 26th of March
Stopmotion Expe

ICT Squad

Six in one

 Avengers

Facultad de papel

Oral B

 Pejims

Teacher in process

Squadra
Robots Avengers

Facultad de papel

Oral B

 Pejims

Teacher in process

Squadra

 Expe

ICT Squad

Six in one
Augmented Reality Pejims

Teacher in process

Squadra

 Expe

ICT Squad

Six in one

 Avengers

Facultad de papel

Oral B

Some of these coming children speak some English, but most do not, so the activities will try to be flexible and our Erasmus students will play the role of teachers who only speak English (as an English teacher on their normal schools). However, due to time constraints, the activity should be completed in Spanish.

In addition, as for each activity, we have less than an hour, so we will have to be practical and try to survive the unforeseen in the best possible way:

So, before Tuesday, my students should:

  • Read the activity carefully as soon as they can, make sure they understand correctly what they have to do and that they know how to do it with them.
  • Any software to develop the activity must be installed on more than one device to work WITH their students. They should make sure they have it installed on at least two devices (always prepare a plan B for the technology) and that all of them are full of battery on Tuesday.
  • Make sure they bring whatever physical things they would need to work with them (white and coloured papers, crayons, playdough, dolls, toys, rulers, rules for calculating angles, pencils, as many cards as you need…). Each group will work with a group of 5-7 students (depending on the day), and should bring enough material for all of them.
  • For those who are going to work with robots, they will bring two different basic ways to create the paths: a square or one with more than 50 cm in length on the shorter side, and a scalene triangle whose shorter side is at least 40 cm.
  • For those who are working with stop-motion: enough copies of the story they are going to represent and enough materials to represent it.
  • For those using augmented reality, enough copies of the photo from https://chromville.com/wp-content/uploads/laminas/chromville_science/EN/Demo_water_cycle_trigger.pdf and a plan for encouraging them to work collaboratively.
  • They should foresee the strategy of working with the learners (how to do the activity), plan it carefully and explain it on their blog.
  • Stars and journalists should be responsible for collecting and publishing data and evidence of the work (photos, recordings, etc.) using the hashtag #rict1819. The Stars would be up of the children’s performance, and the journalists of their work as a group at that time.
  • They should show in their blog the work of the children with a brief reference to how was the development of the hour, as well as the assessment standards (from the official CARM curriculum) of the subject that are being developed with this activity.

In addition to all this, it should be fun for the children and for us, but it should also be of benefit to both.

The truth is that seeing my students work this week preparing things, I am optimistic is going to be all fantastic … hopefully, it will go very well and that we learn many things from this experience.

In order not to collapse this blog too much, I will try to publish the approximations that my students make as the weeks, and we will see.

Oh! and if you want to see what we do, may be you can check our SNS activity here

European Digital Education Hackathon

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

If for all the institutions around the world the digital transformation of education is an inexcusable necessity, for the European Union it is one of its top current priorities.

In fact, the Commission has adopted an action plan on digital education that has three priorities, including 11 actions to support the use of technology and the development of digital competences in education at all levels, as well as measures to help EU Member States meet the challenges and opportunities of education in the digital age. The three priorities are:

  • Making better use of digital technology for teaching and learning (Action 1 to 3)
  • Developing digital competences and skills (Action 4 to 8)
  • Improving education through better data analysis and foresight

Within this framework, and as part of Action 11 (strategic foresight), an EU-wide digital education hackathon is being organised to collectively find innovative solutions to the challenges facing educational institutions today.

The DIGIEDUHACK is a 24 hrs annual event that try to identify collectively, key challenges for education in the digital age and co-create solutions across disciplines and organizations.

The idea is that this working day should be able to collect as many challenges and practical solutions as possible so that, once the working day is over, these ideas can be analysed and proposals made to help the EU formulate policies and launch other initiatives.

This year, the event will take place on the 3rd of October and, while there are many details yet to be determined, it would be an interesting idea for all of us to start thinking about how our institutions, and their members, should participate in it. It is a way of participating, of making our voice heard… and also of speaking – each from his or her perspective(s), of that which concerns us so much, today’s education.

I am part of the Steering Group of the hackathon, a group of 12 people from the Union (I am the only one who goes from Spain) that has been called from the Directorate General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, and specifically from the EIT (European Institute of Innovation and Technology) to give some ideas (although the whole organization is assumed centrally). On 21st January we met for the first time in Brussels and we are still working.

DIGIEDUHACK Steering Group 1st Meeting

As I have told you, there are many details to be adjusted, it is planned that the Hackathon website will be ready at the beginning of March and that little by little we will be clarifying details of participation, dynamics, procedures, and so on. I will tell you as I know more details and I strongly encourage you to participate, whether you are inside or outside the EU.

(Español) ¿Cómo hacer un Proyecto Docente?

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Sorry, this entry is only available in Español.

Hoy me he presentado (con éxito :-)) a un concurso para la provisión de una plaza de Profesor Titular de Universidad en el Área de Didáctica y Organización Escolar de la Universidad de Murcia. Hoy ha pasado por fin y ha sido estupendo (:-)), pero este post no es un post sobre este dia, (todavía no tengo tono para hablar de este día)…  este post estaba esperando a que pasara y va sobre algunas de las cosas que hacen falta para llegar hasta aquí.

Como todos los que se embarcan en una historia como esta, he tenido que escribir mi Proyecto Docente e Investigador y, aunque tenía ideas, empecé a leer cosas variadas (de lo mio) antes, y no me daba ningún miedo la tarea (¡a mí las tropas!), lo cierto es que cuando “me puse”… no tenía NI IDEA de por dónde empezar… entonces sí empecé a preocuparme… ¿cómo demonios empiezo?

Así que, una vez terminada la faena (si queréis ver cómo se hizo y qué se hizo con algunos de los materiales, tenéis aquí todo el material), en este post tengo que agradecer a otros que pasaron por esta duda antes que yo y que dejaron para la posteridad su trabajo y/o reflexiones que me han servido como fuente de inspiración y de apaciguamiento de la inmensa incertidumbre de estos meses, y además de agradecerles, dejo aquí su “rastro” para que, con suerte, a otros que os veáis en esta misma tesitura os sirvan también:

  • Gracias Marga Cabrera de la UPV por su post “Cómo hacer un proyecto docente e investigador para plaza de titular“, porque sobre todo me ayudó a no sentirme tan increíblemente inútil ante una tarea que parecía excesivamente básica. Explica los básicos antes de empezar, para todo el mundo. Y gracias Marga por tu disposición 🙂
  • Gracias Esteban Romero, por dejar abiertas y disponibles las presentaciones que utilizó en el concurso. Esa es otra locura… cómo presentar el CV y que no parezca una lista de la compra, o no dormirte mientras tanto.
  • Gracias Ruben Béjar, por dejar su proyecto (encima de 2017, es decir, reciente) disponible. Insisto en que no he incluido en mi trabajo nada del proyecto, pero su aproximación, especialmente a los asuntos contextuales, me abrió los ojos a unas cuantas cosas interesantes que me estaban pasando inadvertidas.
  • Gracias a los autores de otros proyectos docentes que también están abiertos en Internet, también me dieron ideas. De área cercanas a la mía el de María José Rodríguez Conde,  o el de Alejandra Bosco, o el de… cada vez hay más… este post lo empecé a escribir la primera vez que busqué (para no olvidarme los nombres) y, ahora -7 meses después- que hago un repaso ¡hay cientos!… bueno, igual me he pasado… ¡hay decenas!

Gracias a todos por vuestra generosidad.

Hay mucha sabiduría por las redes sobre este y todos los particulares, pero desde mi experiencia yo quisiera compartiros alguna idea que apuntaría por si me pilla otra vez, mi versión de cómo afrontar un proyecto docente:

  • Lo primero: léete la normativa de la universidad que convoca el concurso al que quieres presentarte. Léetela y reléetela. Cada universidad tiene su propio estilo y definen (o no) el proyecto de formas MUY diferentes.
  • Empieza viendo… no leyendo… viendo… busca tu estilo.
  • Recuerda que vas a invertir más horas de las que quieres (y muchas más de las REALMENTE necesarias -si esto no fuera una carrera de hamsters y bla bla bla-)… así que… busca un aliciente… disfruta con algo de lo que estés haciendo… no rellenes papel… y si no tienes más remedio… dale un sentido… (si no eres pedagogo, no le ves el sentido y quieres que te de la chapa, me ofrezco a contarte por qué el proyecto docente mola como proyecto curricular).
  • Recuerda que puedes soñar e imaginar tu asignatura… en el contexto en el que estás y con los alumnos que tienes, pero puedes ir más allá de planificar lo que ya haces… plantéatelo como un proyecto de innovación docente para tu aula… y de eso que te gusta tanto (como para hacer una Tesis, un post-doc, mil papers, ¡si tu eres un friki de eso! etc.)
  • Piensa en el proyecto investigador a lo grande… escribe una propuesta de proyecto que te sirva para presentarla a tu nombre en la próxima convocatoria… será trabajo ganado… y aprenderás más…
  • Recuerda que es TU proyecto… incluye lo que entiendas y SOLO lo que hayas leído… descubrí que hay alguna referencia que citan muchas personas en sus proyectos docentes  y está descatalogada de casi todas las bibliotecas españolas en que pregunté (tuve que hacerme con el libro por Internet en una librería de 2ª mano… en la red… creo que me lo trajeron desde alguna librería perdida en Inglaterra)…
  • Mi objetivo inicial era hacer un PD de menos de 100 páginas… no lo conseguí (aunque por la longitud de este post imaginas las razones ;-))… ¿y si entre todos empezamos a dejar de repetirnos?
  • Léete los proyectos de la gente que realmente admires intelectualmente. ¡Vas a aprender horrores de tu ámbito… de las “bases” de tu ámbito!.
  • Abre un poco la mirada. No estaría mal que no leas “solo” de lo tuyo… igual algún paseo por los alrededores hace el camino más divertido intelectualmente. Gracias Paco Llorens por la selección de filosofía de la tecnología.
  • Mira proyectos (no te los bajes y los “atesores” en tu ordenador… míralos en la red)… también de otras áreas… he visto proyectos super interesantes y preciosos de las áreas más dispares (arquitectura, historia, ingeniería, comunicación) y me han servido de inspiración (aunque no se note :-P).
  • Ahora, busca TU VOZ, que suene a ti…
  • Si puedes, atrévete con algo… sé intrépido intelectualmente, o metodológicamente…(insisto, si puedes), y antes de tirarte a la piscina, busca a alguien en quien confíes plenamente -y que intelectualmente te sorprenda- pídele que lea tu atrevimiento y te de su opinión descarnada. Gracias Paco Martínez por tu opinión descarnada.

Claro, todas estas bobadas dependen de cómo sea tu concurso, si es tu área o no, cómo sea el ambiente del examen, el tribunal, la cantidad de candidatos, mil cosas… pero esta fue mi experiencia…

Solo una cosa más: recuerda que tu misión es demostrar que eres LA PERSONA para ese puesto de trabajo (para ese en concreto), no es una tesis doctoral, no es una comunicación a un congreso. No olvides que se trata de un proceso de selección y que tu misión es demostrar en ese proceso que eres quien debe ocupar ese sitio y que llevas trabajando por él todos estos años. ¡A por ello!

Addenda (por si os anima a los que estáis escribiendo ahora y pasáis por aquí):

Fruto en parte de semillas sembradas durante el trabajo hecho para los materiales de esta oposición, surgieron conversaciones y trabajos que -muy trabajados y mejorados por mis compañeros de aventuras y colegas- han desembocado en algunas publicaciones de las que estoy particularmente contenta porque confirma que no perdí el tiempo sino que me sirvió para aprender un montón de cosas:

“More than Tools” the Special Collection is already out

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

One year ago, Professor  Neil Selwyn from Monash University and myself, launched a call for an Special Collection at the International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (ETHE dedicated to critical and diverse analyses of the reality of Educational Technology in universities, and today, with the publication of the editorial of the collection, the issue is complete.

I have to say that it is not a “customary” editorial, that is to say, it is not an introductory summary of the papers in the collection; I have had the immense opportunity to write with Professor Selwyn an article of critical reflection on educational technology today that has tickled my brain a lot… a lot to think about (on the subject, on how it is written, on my profession, on a thousand things)… not only now, for the future… and I wanted to share it with you:

More than tools? Making sense of the ongoing digitizations of higher education https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0109-y

In addition, I sincerely believe that the collection has turned out to be a very good collection of articles worth reading calmly, all of them with high quality and diverse points of view, and with a good combination of experience and freshness in the authorship of the texts.

Once the publication of the collection is finished, I would like to invite you to read them all and to reopen the discussion with your comments and contributions…. I think the articles are more only interesting when they help us to build debate.

I would also like to thank Neil Selwyn from the bottom of my heart, for all that I have learned from him during this time, for the immense opportunity to count on him in this effort. I hope we can work together again, at least I’ve learned a lot.

Thanks to the ETHE Journal for its commitment to an issue like this one, closer to theory and reflection than to the issues that concern us so much lately and thanks a thousand to the magazine’s team (Josep, Elsa) for their invaluable help.

Obviously, to say that without the people who sign these papers the collection could not exist, I have confirmed my admiration for many of them and I have discovered others from whom I will surely continue to read things. I also hope to have the opportunity to meet those I don’t know yet… hopefully soon

Finally, thanks to all the people who sent us their manuscripts, whether or not they are in the final collection. Thank you for being concerned with, and working on, these issues.

The only way to think about EdTech is to think critically about it…. it is the only way to make it useful and relevant. That’s why I hope we all keep thinking….

Thinking on Teaching Competence for a Digital World

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

For some months now, in informal conversations with other colleagues and, more in depth with my friends Francesc Esteve and Jordi Adell, we have been thinking about the idea that the definition of Teaching Digital Competence (hereinafter TDC), as it is proposed in most of the available models, left us with too many “unfinished ideas”…

Basically, we believed – we still believe – that the existing TDC models are based on a vision of what is digital competence (generic), that is used as fundamentals, and on top, pedagogy is “spread” as a layer (like butter)… but definitively in a too thin layer. As a result, these models – and their developments – are guilty of three main evils at least:

  • They do not understand teaching action as an integral action beyond the performance of the classroom.
  • They have a reduced and reductionist view of technology
  • They do not make explicit the type of competence model that underlies them, and if they do, they tend to coincide with models of mangerialism models, rather than integral development ones.

So we decided to work on these ideas and, in addition to a more in-depth analysis of existing CDD models, we would like proposing at least a first outline of what a Model of Teaching Competence for the Digital World would be. That is to say, a model that understands that the base is the teaching action and on it, is “spread” (to follow with the metaphor) the technology by all the corners, and in its wider perspective.

As a result of these joint thoughts, we have written two papers that have just been published and that I would like to share with you today. I know they are just in Spanish (we hope continue working on it in English in the near future), but if you are interested, I’m sure translator could help you (I’m open for chats too :-)).

Every comment and suggestion is welcome….

(Español) Seminario de Innovación en el CEIP Ntra Señora del Carmen

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Sorry, this entry is only available in Español.

Desde hace un par de años, y gracias a la intrépida naturaleza de sus maestras de Infantil (hay un maestro) que se arriesgaron conmigo, colaboro con el profesorado de infantil del CEIP Nuestra Señora del Carmen de Murcia, haciendo de dinamizadora de un seminario de innovación para el aula.

¿Y eso qué quiere decir? Que desde hace dos años largos nos reunimos una tarde con cierta frecuencia (como una vez al mes) para aprender juntos.

¿Y cómo lo hacemos? Pues la estructura de los seminarios es siempre la misma: primero, uno a uno, contamos qué hemos hecho con nuestros alumnos desde que no nos vemos (actividades “enriquecidas” con tecnología, con su planificación, cómo se nos ocurrió, problemas, resultados, etc.), los demás intentamos ayudar animando, dando la enhorabuena, o aportando cosas para solventar problemas o “mejorar” la experiencia. Después planteamos cosas que queríamos haber hecho y no hemos hecho por lo que sea, e intentamos dar solución a eso que no nos deja ponerlo en marcha para poder seguir avanzando. Finalmente introducimos un concepto, tecnología, metodología, nuevos, toqueteamos un poco y dejamos faena para el próximo dia.

¿Y cómo es el CEIP de el Carmen?

Es un centro público, de un barrio tradicional de Murcia, diverso como pocos, con casuísticas familiares MUY variopintas, con una wifi que a veces va y a veces no va, unas pizarras digitales que sí y a veces tampoco, que tenían libro de texto en infantil hace 2 años (sí, jeje, tenían…), que tienen rotación de interinos, gente más motivada, menos, que se les dan mejor las TIC, o peor… ¡vaya! un centro de lo más público… no tenemos una empresa que invierta en él, ni un sponsor… y sí, con esos mimbres hacemos (y ahí me encanta incluirme) escuela 🙂 …

Dos años después el camino ha sido estupendo… cada una de las cosas que hacen los maestros de infantil del CEIP Ntra Señora del Carmen merece una entrada (a ver si me decido y hago por fin un blog del seminario… promesa que tengo en medio).

Hoy, aprovechando el proceso de reflexión que supuso el hecho de que una representación del seminario participase en las pasadas Jornadas de Novadors, comparto con vosotros un par de testimonios de ese trabajo. Debo decir que el proceso de reflexión, las cosas de las que hablamos cuando pensábamos qué contaríamos en Novadors, fue en sí mismo un proceso de aprendizaje muy bonito (Dewey no dijo que se aprendiese haciendo, sino REFLEXIONANDO sobre lo hecho…)… y de ese proceso resultaron dos aportaciones para la sesión de pechakuchas:

En primer lugar un cuento en el que se habla del seminario como experiencia de desarrollo profesional docente:

Y en segundo lugar otro Pechakucha en Novadors en el Mª José y MªÁngeles prsentaron algunas de las actividades que hacen los niños con tecnología (el vídeo es de todos los pechakuchas de este año, a nuestras profes las tenéis a partir del minuto 44).
https://youtu.be/OkKMrVz-Gho?t=44m12s

Si queréis ver más, aquí tenéis los blogs de los profes de infantil (de los que tienen), para que echéis un vistazo a cómo trabajan de bien y bonito:

Yo he aprendido muchas cosas, bastantes más de las que aprenden ellos conmigo… y además he tenido la oportunidad infinita de contribuir… y espero seguir haciéndolo…. No en vano yo además soy parte “afectada” en este proceso…

El año pasado empezamos a contar con el respaldo de la Consejería, tengo que decir que con la motivación del grupo era más que suficiente, pero bien está que se oficialice el compromiso… Este año 2017-2018 continuamos con el seminario “respaldado” y se incorporan -felizmente- 13 profesores de primaria… es una nueva etapa y un nuevo camino…

Espero que este post sirva, además de como testimonio de otra de esas cosas que llevo “en medio”, como pequeño tributo a esos maestros y maestras que han confiado en mí y que lo hacen TAN bien… es un privilegio teneros como profes… ¡Gracias a todos!

Ya os contaré…

Fair of Technology Enhanced Didactic Activities by #rict1617

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

As it is already a tradition in this course (#Research & ICT for students of the First year of the Degree of Primary Education), this Wednesday the 17th has been our fair of Technology Enhanced Didactic Activities. It is a time for students to propose the activities, collect some feedback from other teachers and colleagues of the faculty, and have some chance of improving them before being delivered as final deliverable of the course.
Here you have some visual testimony of what happened on Wednesday in the hall of our faculty

Thinking critically about Ed Tech in Higher Education (Call for papers)

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Last February Dr Neil Selwyn and I have published a Call for Papers for a Special Issue on The International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, in which we said:

“Digital Technology has been promoted as a crucial element for the improvement of contemporary education, and one of the key challenges to face Higher Education all over the world. Universities are now awash with digital systems and devices, with the promise of improving the performance of students and educators by enhancing learning, boosting enrolment, retention and completion rates. Individuals everywhere increasingly engage in higher education along digital lines. In parallel, educational technology is now a multi-billion dollar industry – involving global technology corporations in local educational provision and practice. The need to ask critical questions of the relationship higher education and technology is more pressing than ever.”

I not a question of being in favour or against Technology. I’m a technological person, I love technology, I’m teacher of Educational Technology, and I’m a researcher in Educational Technology. I personally believe on the importance of technology for understanding better the world, for living better. I love the time I live, I love challenges, and this is one of the most challenging time ever.

Nevertheless, as a “not new technology lover”, I already have past the time of being enlightened about technology, and I can see (guess, for being honest) that the instrumental way in which we have understood technology until now, is definitively not enough, and less for education.

From the vision I have, the instrumental use of technology is more or less “solved” in our times… Web 2.0 tools are easy to get, use and bring it to education, to our classes, to the teachers and students hands. Nonetheless, I’m not pretty sure that the way in which we –and others- are using them and including them in our educational systems, are entire understood by all of us… from a critical perspective.

This is one of the reasons for leading this Special Issue (Thematic Series in the language of the journal). As we said:
“Against this background, this thematic series looks at the impact of digital technology on higher education through a deliberately critical lens. We are interested in moving beyond notions of technology as an instrumental issue that is neutrally implemented, and instead, develop more nuanced analyses by problematizing the claims and assumptions surrounding higher education in a digital age.

Recent critical scholarship of technology has encompassed many study area and research topics. These include the understanding of new literacies and personal competencies under the view of media and arts education, philosophy of education, community education, critical pedagogy and activist education. There are also burgeoning critiques of technology within feminist and gender studies literatures, policy studies, and emerging interest in critical realist, socio-material and post-humanist directions.”

This is a personal invitation for you. For all of you that are exploring in a critical way how technology is impacting in Higher Education. Let’s show us your research, prepare and sent us your paper and we hope this would be a good point for continuing discussing and thinking critically.

The deadline is 1st of August, en the entire information is here

http://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/criticaledtech

Hope to read you there!

(Español) Suelo y sol: más pensamiento (y contexto) para la innovación educativa

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Sorry, this entry is only available in Español.

Hace unos meses tuve el privilegio de escribir unas palabras que han sido incluidas en el último número del Boletín de la Insititución Libre de Enseñanza sobre mi visión sobre el suelo y el techo que le falta a la innovación educativa. Estaba esperando a que el texto estuviese disponible online para compartirlo con vosotros, pero Fernando Trujillo, con su entrada sobre los pedagogos me ha “tirado” de la lengua jeje… así que aquí me tenéis (gracias Fernando).

Comparto con Fernando algunos de los puntos de su análisis (son evidentes en el texto que os presento), algunos no. Creo que el asunto es bastante más complejo (si, no complicado, complejo).

Aquí os lo dejo, espero que sea de vuestro interés

Castañeda, L. (2016) Suelo y sol: más pensamiento y contexto para la innovación educativa. Boletín de la Institución Libre de Enseñanza, 104. 37-50

Sólo una precisión final. Una lanza por mis compañeros, por los de la universidad y los de fuera. No solo por lo que me toca (que es interesado y muy parcial), no creo que falten pensamientos profundos o interesantes que “releven” a los grandes pedagogos de una generación como la precedente (sigo creyendo en la distribución normal de las poblaciones).

La generación que viene (que ya está en las universidades o en los ámbitos sociales de desarrollo educativo),  está llena de gente potente, lista y de pensamiento profundo que intenta cambiar la educación y hacer mejor las cosas, no obstante, puede que no vaya a tener la repercusión mediática/académica de los “mayores”,  porque la cosa ha cambiado mucho y la precarización de los puestos de trabajo de los académicos les afecta también de forma absolutamente terrible.

Y a pesar de ello, a pesar de que diluvia, piensan maravillosamente e intentan influir en su contexto tanto como les es posible… ¿falta hacerlo más?… seguro… pero haberlos haylos.

En la lista final de agradecimientos intelectuales que nos presenta Fernando Trujillo creo que están muchos de los que son, aunque hay grandes ausencias que entiendo no pueden ser suplidas en un post y menos a gusto de todos, pero debo decir que cada vez falta más espacio para la pedagogía.

De varios de los conferenciantes (blogueros, tuiteros y “educadores” en general), todos “expertos” en “innovación educativa” con los que coincido en saraos varios he tenido que aguantar (sabéis que a algunos les aguanto menos) que me digan que “sin ánimo de ofenderme” que creen que de pedagogía es de lo último que se debe hablar en la escuela… y que los pedagogos sobramos. Se agradece Fernando que alguien nos eche a faltar.

GITE Seminar: Basic readings about Educational Technology Vol. 2

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Following the initiative started in May with the first one, now we have done the second version of the Recommended Readings Seminar, following the compilation of readings done in the Book “Educational Technology” by Chris Davies y Rebbeca Eynon (2016). This second part is titled by the authors as  “Research into Technology and Learning Sciences, and Associated Theoretical and Methodological Issues”, and includes the following readings.

We hope you find them provocative:

The Science of Learning and Instruction Meets Computer Science

  • Vannevar Bush, ‘As We May Think’, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1945, 1–19.
  • Pask, ‘Conversational Techniques in the Study and Practice of Education’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1976, 46, 12–25.
  • Arthur C. Graesser, Shulan Lu, George Tanner Jackson, Heather Hite Mitchell, Matthew Ventura, Andrew Olney, and Max M. Louwerse, ‘AutoTutor: A Tutor with Dialogue in Natural Language’, Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 2004, 36, 2, 180–92.
  • Yanghee Kim and Amy L. Baylor, ‘A Social-Cognitive Framework for Pedagogical Agents as Learning Companions’, Educational Technology Research and Development, 2006, 54, 6, 569–90.
  • Edys S. Quellmalz and James W. Pellegrino, ‘Technology and Testing’, Science, 2009, 2, 75–9

Users and Contexts in Designing Technology for Learning

  • Ann L. Brown, ‘Design Experiments: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Creating Complex Interventions in Classroom Settings’, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1992, 2, 2, 141–78.
  • Dahlbäck, A. Jönsson, and L. Ahrenberg, ‘Wizard of Oz Studies: Why and How’, Knowledge Based Systems, 1993, 6, 4, 258–66.
  • Kari Kuutti, ‘Activity Theory as a Potential Framework for Human-Computer Interaction Research’, in B. Nardi (ed.), Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction (MIT Press, 1995), pp. 17–44.
  • Richard E. Mayer and Roxana Moreno, ‘A Split-Attention Effect in Multimedia Learning: Evidence for Dual Processing Systems in Working Memory’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 1998, 90, 2, 312–20.
  • Allison Druin, ‘The Role of Children in Design of New Technology’, Behaviour and Information Technology, 2002, 21, 1, 1–25.
  • Sasha Barab and Kurt Squire, ‘Design Based Research: Putting a Stake in the Ground’, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2004, 13, 1, 1–14.

Part 3: Techniques for Analysing Learning Behaviour Online

  • Henri and B. Pudelko, ‘Understanding and Analysing Activity and Learning in Virtual Communities’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2003, 19, 474–87.
  • De Wever, T. Schellens, M. Valcke, and H. Van Keer, ‘Content Analysis Schemes to Analyze Transcripts of Online Asynchronous Discussion Groups: A Review’, Computers & Education, 2006, 46, 1, 6–28.
  • Caroline Haythornthwaite and Maarten de Laat, ‘Social Networks and Learning Networks: Using Social Network Perspectives to Understand Social Learning’, in L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, and T. Ryberg (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning (2010), pp. 183–90.
  • Cristobal Romero and Sebastian Ventura, ‘Educational Data Mining: A Review of the State of the Art’, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part C: Applications And Reviews, 2010, 40, 6, 601–18.
  • Simon Buckingham Shum and Rebecca Ferguson, ‘Social Learning Analytics’, Educational Technology & Society, 2011, 15, 3, 3–26.
  • Lori Lockyer, Elizabeth Heathcote, and Shane Dawson, ‘Informing Pedagogical Action: Aligning Learning Analytics with Learning Design’, American Behavioral Scientist, 2013, 57, 10, 1439–59.

(Español) TIC, brecha digital y proyectos incluyentes (Material de clase)

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Sorry, this entry is only available in Español.

En el curso 2014-2015 fui la encargada de la docencia de la asignatura “TIC, brecha digital y proyectos incluyentes”, del Máster en Inclusión y Exclusión Educativa de la Universidad de Murcia.

La idea de fondo, la misma de casi todas las asiganturas donde trabajo: aprendizaje basado en tareas, producto final presentado en puesta en común,  evaluación continua y una evaluación final basado en portafolio basado en competencias.  La asignatura tenía una periodicidad semanal con 3 horas de trabajo en cada sesión.

En total el material incluye la guía para estudiantes de 7 actividades y la guía de evaluación:

  • ESTADOS DE LA CUESTIÓN
  • BRECHAS DEL MUNDO DIGITALIZADO
  • CIUDADANÍA EN TIEMPOS 2.0
  • PARTICIPACIÓN 2.0
  • COMPETENCIA DIGITAL
  • ENTORNO PERSONAL DE APRENDIZAJE
  • DESARROLLO COMUNITARIO CON TIC A TRAVÉS DE LA EDUCACIÓN
  • GUÍA DE EVALUACIÓN 2014-2015

Lo urgente, que no me deja casi nunca tiempo a lo importante, así que no había tenido tiempo de compartir el material de clase que hemos usado, pero, por si a alguien le hace algún papel, aquí lo tenéis con una licencia CC-BY-NC-SA, así que, si te es de utilidad, úsalo, mejoralo y vuelve a compartirlo.

Guía completa de la asignatura TIC, brecha digital y proyectos incluyentes 2014-2015

(Español) En la ILE: Estrategias de la Nueva Educación: Entornos Personales de Aprendizaje

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Sorry, this entry is only available in Español.

Estas dos semanas de septiembre estaré en la Fundación Giner de los Rios (Institución Libre de Enseñanza), coordinando (es una forma de hablar) un curso al que se ha llamado “Estrategias para la Nueva Educación: Entornos Personales de Aprendizaje”.

En realidad no se trata de un curso de Entornos Personales de Aprendizaje (PLE) al uso, aunque vayamos a hablar de PLEs, al menos no es esa la intención. Queremos conseguir una experiencia de aprendizaje conjunto en la que podamos explorar cómo abrir nuestra aula (sí, está pensado para profes de educación formal) y hacer las paredes de nuestras clases más permeables a lo que tenemos fuera, a la vez que hacemos que el contexto de fuera se vea más tocado por lo que hacemos en el aula.

No tenemos mucho tiempo (2 viernes tarde -16 y 23 de septiembre, de 17 a 21 hrs y dos sábados por la mañana -17 y 24, de 9 a 15 hrs), así que hemos querido hacer un primer bocado de este tipo de propuestas explorando algunas formas de hacer eso (hacer permeable nuestra experiencia docente y la experencia de aprendizaje de nuestros alumnos), así:

  • Viernes 16: La sesión la haré yo y haremos cosas (si, no es una conferencia, es un taller) para trabajar sobre ¿Qué significa tener un entorno personal de aprendizaje y ayudar a mis alumnos a enriquecer su entorno personal de aprendizaje?
  • El sábado 17, Ramón Barlam liderará la mañana en la que exploraremos cómo se hace una experiencia de acercar el aula al contexto con Realidad Aumentada y cómo funcionan o “sobreviven” los proyectos Intercentros.
  • El viernes 23, Isabel Gutiérrez nos provocará con actividades que abran nuestras aulas a las redes sociales como contexto de relación y como potenciales entornos de trabajo y aprendizaje.
  • y El sábado 24, conmigo otra vez (!), retomaremos e integraremos perspectivas “diferentes” de aplicación de los Entornos de Aprendizaje Personales, Personalizados en nuestros grupos y organizaciones escolares.

No se trata de conferencias. Si os animáis a venir, traed vuestras ganas de trabajar, vuestros tablets, ordenadores, o móviles y vuestras ganas de hacer cosas… la lengua suelta para hablar y preguntar y la mente abierta (realistas, pero también optimistas).

Haremos cosas, nos mojaremos de los conceptos, intentaremos hacer llover ideas en el curso, pero no se vale venir con paraguas, ¡hay que empaparse! la idea es hacer las ideas lo más vivas posible en el curso y que todos (los que coordinamos cada sesión los primeros) aprendamos mil cosas y nos llevemos nuevas ideas para poner en marcha eso de “Una Nueva Educación”.

Ahora la pregunta es: ¿os apuntáis? empezamos mañana pero ¡estáis a tiempo!

Podéis apuntaros en la web de la fundación  http://docentes.fundacionginer.org/index.php/inscripciones/?platform=hootsuite

ah! y tiene reconocimiento oficial del MECD

 

(Español) Debate: ¿qué funciona realmente en la innovación educativa?

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Sorry, this entry is only available in Español.

El pasado 27 de junio en la sede de la Institución Libre de Enseñanza, se llevó a cabo el debate ¿qué funciona realmente en la innovación educativa?. En el que participaron 4 profesores y líderes de 4 centros que han sido premiados por su innovación en la pasada edición de los Premios de la Fundación Telefónica: en concreto aceptaron la invitación: María del Mar Santos del CEIP Manuel Bartolomé Cossío (Madrid), José María Ruiz Palomo del IES Cartima (Cártama, Málaga), David Atzet i Rovira del IES SINS Cardener (Sant Joan de Vilatorrada) y Felix Elejoste del Colegio La Salle Berrozpe (Fund. Legarra Etxebeste) (Andoain, Guipuzkoa). Yo tuve el privilegio de estar allí y ejercí como moderadora del debate (ya, ya sé que parece de broma que yo modere algo, pero así fue).

Aunque su título pudiera dejar lugar a alguna “duda”, pretendíamos construir una conversación abierta, fructífera, que huyese de los tópicos y que pusiese a la innovación de primera línea cara de realidad. Es decir, se trataba de hablar de qué funciona y, por supuesto, de qué NO funciona en innovación educativa. Les pedí a los profesores invitados que no trajeran casi nada preparado. En las semanas previas convinimos que intentaríamos hacer fluir la discusión en torno a unos cuantos núcleos temáticos que pensábamos que podrían ser interés: Innovación en tu centro, Profesorado, Estudiantes, Familias, Entorno y Política (más detalles en la presentación de más abajo)

Teníamos 3 horas de debate y una alineación estelar, aunque confieso que parecíamos el elenco de un chiste “Eran un vasco, un catalán, una madrileña, un andaluz y una murciombiana…”, también se trataba de personas que trabajan en 4 (bueno, yo 5, aunque yo no hablaba) contextos sociales, culturales, institucionales, económicos y políticos radicalmente diferentes, de niveles educativos diferentes (infantil y primaria, secundaria y FP) y que forman parte de cuatro proyectos completamente diferentes entre ellos, que efectivamente responden a esa “etiqueta” de innovadores de forma brillante, pero con filosofías diversas… y debo decir que deliciosamente diversas.

Confieso que tenía miedo a que el debate se nos eternizara (3 horas son muchas horas, especialmente para el público que nos oyese, así que tenía un plan B con descanso incluído en medio para estirar las piernas y recobrar fuerzas, pero no descansamos, todo fluyó con la misma energía que desprendían los invitados, su discurso era complementario, diverso, amable pero firme y claro, muy claro. Las tres horas se nos quedaron cortas y nos quedamos con mil cosas en el tintero, entre ellas un decálogo que había pedido a cada uno de nuestros invitados, con sus “puntos clave” para la innovación, pero podéis verlos en la presentación de más arriba.

Para mí es imposible hacer un buen resumen de lo que se dijo, porque lejos de contarnos solo una idea, cada uno de los debatientes, en su experiencia, nos contaba la suya y nos explicaba las razones que llevaron a su equipo (sí, todos hablaban de su equipo) a hacer eso, de esa forma, en ese lugar, y entonces eso que lo que hemos hablado tantas veces en mis clases, o con colegas hablando en abstracto, se materializó en sus testimonios: efectivamente no se trata sólo de qué, sino de cómo y por qué… y los por qués no son circunstanciales, son contextuales, pero además requieren una reflexión técnica, teórica, práctica, didáctica y emocional que no es replicable, pero de cuya experiencia es posible aprender.

Se dijeron muchas cosas, durante el debate y en las conversaciones pre y post, pero algunas siguen resonando en mi cabeza sin que pueda diferenciar cuándo se dijeron ni si son exactamente como las oí o como quise oirlas, pero siguen resonando y creo que merecen un análisis lentito y un eco todo lo alto que podamos hacerlo porque son sabiduría de David, José María, Félixy y Mª del Mar:

  • Necesitamos una legislación que dé marcos pero que sea flexible, necesitamos que la normativa incluya el cambio como realidad constante.

  • Tenemos que confiar más en los profesores, el exceso de normativa y de materiales pre-terminados nos está desmotivando y desprofesionalizando. Si queremos un profe que arriesgue, tenemos que dar márgenes para el riesgo.

  • La normativa nos permite mucho más de lo que creemos, si sabemos dónde mirar. Los libros de texto y su “Curriculum” son mucho más restrictivos.

  • Si ves que quieres cambiar cosas en tu centro y que no encuentras nadie que lidere ese cambio, si estás cansado de no encontrar respuesta en tu equipo directivo, igual deberías plantearte presentar – y liderar- TU un proyecto de equipo directivo.

  • Todo el que no quiera participar en hacer la educación que los jóvenes necesitan, por favor, apartaos.

  • La evaluación es deseable y la calificación ineludible, deberíamos incluir más a los estudiantes como parte activa de ella y no solo como “víctimas”. Hay que apostar por procesos de evaluación variada, rica, auténtica y por dar un mayor peso y mayor responsabilidad en el feedback a los iguales (compañeros, profes, etc.).

  • La clave de la formación de profesores es el trabajo en comunidades de aprendizaje que sepan crear dinámicas de mejora en las que cada uno aporte y forme a los demás. Hay que sacar más provecho del talento de todos los profesores del centro.

Hay muchas más… seguro que si estuvisteis allí o veis el vídeo  (que espeto enlazar pronto pronto) se os ocurre alguna más. Si es así, dejadla en los comentarios y la agregaré con MUCHO gusto.

Solo me queda agregar otro topicazo que cumplimos a rajatabla en nuestro debate, que fue con gente que era sobretodo gente magnífica, conversadores interesantísimos y personas que –cada una en su particular estilo- resultan entrañables como docentes y como compañeros.

Yo me sentí especialmente orgullosa, porque los 4 decidieran venir, porque para mi fue un honor su presencia, pero además de esos 4, yo sé empíricamente que hay como ellos muchos más y que aunque no vayan a este debate –ganen o no ganen premios- hacen cosas extraordinarias.

No puedo cerrar sin hacer explícito mi agradecimiento a la Fundación Giner de los Ríos y a su patrono, Don Carlos Wert, por invitarme a organizar y moderar este debate y por hacerme parte de este proyecto, a la Institución Libre de Enseñanza (con todo lo que eso representa para una pedagoga como yo) por acogerlo, y a la Fundación Telefónica por poner su grano de arena en que se hiciera posible.

Performance Roles Reinterpreted

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Those who you spend some time around here, maybe you remember than in subjects in which I teach, we work in groups and use performance roles. I told here some time ago in this blog post about roles.

As I told you then, results have been diverse, but I still use them because the students’ work is very rich… at least have told us and gives me the impression.

However, as we told you in previous works, sometimes afraid not always get organizing the experience for students to be aware of what is required in each role, the essence of their performance.

Even when they give instructions, we know that students make their own interpretation of the instructions and they build their own idea of what to do (back to Sellander, 2008).

So this year, in one of the activities, I have asked students to make a video (30 “) in which they show to other colleagues, the 10 keys to achieve each of the roles in the best way possible.

Here are the results:

Journalist

Facilitator

Curator


Star


Translator

Analyst

In almost all cases I think the essence of the work is clear, although I confess that analysts have been not as precise as I would like -it is no so rare, considering it is undoubtedly the most complex-role-. I will have to work more on defining the role and make some activity so that it is better specified.

As always, thanks to my students that make all this possible 🙂

Selander & the #Rict1516 Fair

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

On May 17th, we celebrated -my students and myself, in the hall of the faculty, a new edition of our “Fair of Technology Enhanced Didactic Activities”. As you probably remember, last year we invite you to come 🙂 and after that, we show you a little of what had happened there.

This year, in addition to telling a bit of the story, I want to take advantage of this blog post to emphasize the rationale of that “show”, beyond its playful nature, the idea of being together and doing the students’ work more visible, as well as opening windows reality on the walls of our classroom.

I want to do it, because sometimes, the “lights” and “lanterns” of the fair, do not let us see everything that is an “event” like this, and maybe, make this reflection would help me to organize my thoughts and, who knows, maybe, this would encourage you to give me better ideas to improve it.

The Fair was created with the intention of serve as event presentation of the students’ work, but with the difference that, in this time, the work is assessed but not graded, i.e., is an event in where the goal is, specifically, to conduct a formative evaluation of the work (this is the final work of the course). Both by the teacher of the subject that gives feedback one to one to all groups, about all jobs; by other classmates that are passing by the exhibitors; by other students of the faculty who pass; as well as by other teachers of the faculty that can approach.

After the event, I put a “mark” (the 10% of the final grade for the course) for his staging of the work at the fair (effort, organization exhibitor, and exhibition, etc.), but they still have 2 and a half weeks to finish, profiling and “round up” their activity before the final submission of it for final summative evaluation and, of course, for the qualification.

This idea fits with the notion of The Secondary Transformation Unit, in the Learning Design Sequences described by Sttaffan Selander in his 2008 paper, and summarized quite well when he says::

A sequence starts when the teacher introduces a new task and sets the conditions for the work. The Primary Transformation Unit then entails the interpretation of the task and the setting, and the process of transformation and formation of knowledge – by way of different modes and media. The Secondary Transformation Unit starts with students presenting their work. If the goals, as well as the expectations of the process and the product, are clearly defined and explained in the beginning, both students and teachers will have a powerful tool for reflection and evaluation. During the whole sequence, teachers make interventions and have the possibility to reflect on the signs and indications of learning that occur during the process. (Selander, 2008: 15)

Thus, Selander represents the complete sequences bellow

"Learning Design Sequences". Sellander, 2008.
“Learning Design Sequences.” Selander, 2008.

It is, as we told you last year in the JUTE (Castañeda, Adell & Llopis, 2015), getting foster “a second part of learning, beyond the feedback of the task; getting a third phase in which the possibility of remaking the task under the light of that feedback, as well as reflect on what was learned in the process”, get to think and rethink what we are creating, allow us to learn more and better.

We’ll see 😉

REFERENCES:

Selander, S. (2008). Designs for learning: A theoretical perspective. Designs for Learning, 1(1), 10-23 Disponible en http://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.5

Castañeda, L. Adell, J. & LLopis, M.A. (2015). Cinco años de reflexiones y diálogos docentes a propósito de la asignatura de Tecnologías Aplicadas a la Educación. Comunicación presentada a las JUTE 2015. Badajoz, mayo de 2015.

By the way! If you want to see how was the show this year, here are some of super-dinosaur footprints:

Tools on the Bloom’s eyes

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

If you’ve been here sometimes before, surely you shall know that I do not think that, after 60 years since its publication, we have to keep -“almost with devotion”- looking at the famous “Bloom’s Taxonomy” (here’s the explanation http://www.lindacastaneda.com/Mushware/nobloom /).

However, when I’m asking my students to design an ICT enriched educational activity, where ICT could do more than decoration, and also where they could get from their future students, much more than repetition or identifying, I find tremendously useful the approach to ICT from the Bloom’s Taxonomy perspective, but Bloom’s understood as a list of “thinking skills”.

As a final artifact of that exercise to start thinking about how to develop higher order thinking skills using ICT (Wow! indeed this is the goal), I have taken this year “borrowed” an idea that I saw in the educatorstechnology Blog , and I have asked to my students if they would find a tool of the web 2.0, and would propose an activity they could design with that tool that helps to develop each Bloom’s Taxonomy thinking skills (at least one activity for each thinking skill), and if they would express the list, creating a table / infographic / image that gathers together.

Now it’s time to share them with you on the Pinterest board where we have put together and, hopefully, over the years can be made larger.


 

My GITE’s Seminar: Basic readings about Educational Technology Vol. 1.

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

For some years, GITE has been conducting seminars in which each of us shares with the other members of the group, something of what concerns us, what we are working on, or what attracts our attention in the last times of our professional life.

Particularly, I have to confess that I always have the impression of not having read everything that I could about educational technology. So, when I saw the compilation made by my host at Oxford University Chris Davies and Rebbeca Eynon’s “Educational Technology” (Editing by Routdledge in 2016), and I had the opportunity to review the content index, I understood that it was a wonderful.

It is not a normal book, it is a book that includes a selection of the most relevant articles that can give you an initial perspective about ET. That is to say, it is not a matter of who invented the wheel, and of which are the fundamental bases to understand the development of that wheel; It does not include the initial article of all topics, but sometimes includes later articles that reflect some of the discussion that provoked that topic.
Obviously, like any selection other experts will find it to be improved, but I think it is quite good.

The book includes four complete volumes, and I decided that I would dedicate my GITE seminars to introduce each one of them, in a form of commented readings seminars.

So, on this occasion and to begin with I have dedicated to Volume One which include the following documents:

Part 1: Perspectives on the Nature of Technology and its Place in Human Lives in the Modern World

  • Langdon Winner, ‘Do Artifacts Have Politics?’, Daedalus, 1980, 109, 1, 121–36.
  • Castells, ‘Informationalism, Networks and the Network Society: A Theoretical Blueprint’, The Network Society: A Cross-cultural Perspective (Edward Elgar, 2004), pp. 3–48.
  • Martin Oliver, ‘Technological Determinism in Educational Technology Research: Some Alternative Ways of Thinking About the Relationship Between Learning and Technology’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2011, 27, 15, 373–84.

Part 2: Forming and Configuring the Field of Educational Technology

  • Seymour Papert, ‘Computers and Computer Cultures’, Mindstorms: Children (Basic Books, 1980), pp. 19–37.
  • Larry Cuban, ‘Computers Meet Classroom: Classroom Wins’, Teachers College Record, 1993, 95, 2, 185–210.
  • Richard E. Clark, ‘Media Will Never Influence Learning’, Educational Technology Research and Development, 1994, 42, 2, 21–9.
  • Hank Bromley, ‘The Social Chicken and the Technological Egg: Educational Computing an the Technology/Society Divide’, Educational Theory, 1997, 47, 1, 51–65.
  • Kenneth R. Koedinger, John R. Anderson, William H. Hadley, and Mary A. Mark, ‘Intelligent Tutoring Goes to School in the Big City’, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 1997, 8, 30–43.
  • Anohina, ‘Analysis of the Terminology Used in the Field of Virtual Learning’, Educational Technology & Society, 2005, 8, 3, 91–102.
  • Czerniewicz, ‘Distinguishing the Field of Educational Technology’, Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 2008, 6, 3, 171–8.
  • Neil Selwyn, ‘Making the Most of the “Micro”: Revisiting the Social Shaping of Micro-computing in UK Schools’, Oxford Review of Education, 2014, 40, 2, 170–88.

Part 3: Foundational Theories and Perspectives on the Capacity of Technology to Transform Learning

  • Skinner, ‘Teaching Machines’, Science, 1958, 128, 3330, 969–77.
  • J. Gibson, ‘The Theory of Affordances’, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (Erlbaum, 1979), pp. 127–43.
  • Marlene Scardamalia and Carl Bereiter, ‘Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities’, Journal of Learning Sciences, 1994, 3, 3, 265–83.
  • Roy D. Pea, ‘Seeing What We Build Together: Distributed Multimedia Learning Environments for Transformative Communications’, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1994, 3, 3, 285–99.
  • Mercer, ‘The Quality of Talk in Children’s Joint Activity at the Computer’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 1994, 10, 24–32.
  • Crook, ‘Children as Computer Users: The Case of Collaborative Learning’, Computers and Education, 1998, 30, 3–4, 237–47.
  • James Paul Gee, ‘Semiotic Domains: Is Playing Video Games a “Waste of Time”’, What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy (Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), pp. 13–50.
  • Siemens, ‘Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age’, International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2005, 2, 1, 1–8.

 

Part 4: Theories of Learning and Teaching Underpinning Educational Technology Practice

  • Lev Vygotsky and Alexander Luria, ‘Tool and Symbol in Child Development’, in M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman, Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (Harvard University Press, 1978), pp. 19–30.
  • Fred S. Keller, ‘”Goodbye Teacher …”’, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 1, 79–89.
  • Lave, ‘Situated Learning in Communities of Practice’, in Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine, and Stephanie D. Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition 2 (1991), pp. 63–82.
  • Jonassen, ‘Objectivism Versus Constructivism: Do We Need a New Philosophical Paradigm?’, Educational Technology Research and Development, 1991, 39, 3, 5–14.
  • Anna Sfard, ‘On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One’, Educational Researcher, 1998, 27, 2, 4–13.
  • Pierre Dillenbourg, ‘What Do You Mean by Collaborative Learning?’, in Dillenbourg (ed.), Collaborative-Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (Elsevier, 1999), pp. 1–19.

Another way to think about complexity

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

One of the subjects where I teach is “School Organization and Educational Resources” for the  bilingual group of first-year students at the degree in Primary Education at my University (University of Murcia).

One of the first things I like working with my students when we come to speak about “the organization”, is try to understand complexity in education, everything that has to do with it and, very specifically, to the school as complex context.
I must confess, however, that these kinds of topics I find difficult to work; I guess because in the first year of degree and especially for those very young people, it is difficult to see the importance of issues as “tacit” and little “touchable” as the complex relations between the elements of a system. So, I try to make approaches to content analysis involving the concept, but, as closer as possible to reality.

On this occasion I suggested to my students the following task:

They must review the first chapter of the book Teaching and learning in the digital age de Louise Starkey (we have also worked using the 4th, but I’ll tell you soon), which speaks “simply” about 6 issues related to complexity in schools:

  • Complexity theory
  • The context of a complex organization
  • The emerging knowledge through connections
  • Diversity and redundancy
  • The balance between randomless and deterministic order
  • Theory of complexity and change in schools

I asked students who, after reading the text, should seek in the news last year (national or international), 1 news illustrate each of these issues. Each group conducted a newspaper where he exhibited his news and the relationship between the news and issues we work (here you can see some example  1 , here another 2, another more 3  and  finally another more 4…

Once they made the newspapers, the whole class chose 6 articles that will help illustrate the concepts worked and the performed -among all (self-management and self-organization)- a News TV Show, with 6 news that try to illustrate how complex is the complexity of schools. Here you can see the result:

Here the links from the real news:

1 Hoy comienza la Semana Cultural del colegio Camilo Hernández. http://goo.gl/zctD1d
2 BBC News Is South Korean education ‘best in world’? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFpTd…
3 Un colegio en Vallecas, sin libros ni deberes. http://goo.gl/8Q4JUj
4 Colegios innovadores… sin salir de España http://goo.gl/cbEwfz
5 Unique Uses of Twitter in the Classroom http://goo.gl/DrrdnL
6 La educación virtual http://goo.gl/CdiXsp

… It is not very long, so I invite you to watch it complete to value their work and give us some feedback: to students about whatever you want (please, treat them softly, take into account they already have enough with suffering a teacher like me), and to me, on the activity itself.

I worry that the video could “tarnishes” the important of the issue, the activity “eat” the content and the eflection, yet they continue to make their reflections in the group blog … nevertheless, “traditional” approaches do not ensure that they will focus on “the important thing” … so it only remains to explore and go in the direction of what we know: authentic learning, use of reality, reflection, collaborative work … at least try .. .

Well, you will say to me … I’m looking forward to hearing from you all…

 

Invitación AcTICvities Fair 2015

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Sorry, this entry is only available in Español.

Los estudiantes de primero del grupo bilingüe del grado de Educación Primaria de la Universidad de Murcia, están terminando de desarrollar sus proyectos de actividades didácticas con TIC en el marco de la asignatura “Research & ICT”.
Se trata de proyectos en los que se pretende que propongan actividades enriquecidas con tecnología, no sólo que usen la tecnología como un adorno y que -sin olvidar el currículo que nos obliga- tengan las miras lo más altas posible. Estamos en la fase final de estos desarrollos y antes de terminar, nos encantaría recibir un poco de feedback que pueda enriquecer su trabajo más allá de nuestra clase.
Por ello nos encantaría invitaros a la feria que tendrá lugar mañana 19 de mayo en el Hall de la Facultad de 9:30 a 12 del día. Durante todo ese tiempo, cada grupo de clase expondrá en un stand su actividad para que podáis acercaos un poco más a su trabajo, conozcáis la actividad y podáis sugerirles aquello que consideréis más pertinente; nos encantaría veros a todos por allí y si queréis que vuestros estudiantes vengan, sería perfecto verles por allí
Las exposiciones estarán disponibles en inglés y en español, dependiendo de la preferencia de nuestros visitantes que esperamos seáis muchos e intentaremos retransmitir todo lo que se pueda por los canales habituales (Twitter, instagram, facebook, etc. usando el hashtag #rict1415.
Si os podéis pasar por aquí, será un enooorme placer veros.

Actividades enriquecidas con tecnología, el trabajo de los R&ICT1314

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

En la asignatura de R&ICT (1er curso del grado en Educación Primaria, grupo bilingüe) hemos trabajado todo el año con un proyecto que me gustaría contaros para lo de siempre, si os gusta que uséis lo que os parezca y si tenéis alguna sugerencia que –amablemente jeje- me la hagáis: durante todo el curso hemos diseñado en grupos de 2 o 3 personas lo que hemos llamado una Actividad Didáctica enriquecida con tecnología.

Para hacerlo lo primero que hicimos fue hablar de metas (goals), la idea era pensar en qué queremos realmente que los alumnos aprendan, partiendo de que si en realidad se trata de “enriquecer” la actividad didáctica, será porque aspiramos a algo más que recordar o entender (aunque ya sabéis que no soy la más Bloomer 😉 ). La idea era, partiendo del tema que quisiéramos abordar (siempre desde el Curriculum oficial y la impresionante revisión de Fernando Trujillo), darle vueltas a qué verbos vamos a poner en marcha con los estudiantes… así que les pedí que pusieran esos verbos en un padlet:

Una vez puestos los verbos en ese tablón, hicimos una reflexión en clase sobre qué significaban y qué consecuencias tenían en las actividades. Ahora con eso, Jane Challinor en su visita (a la que le debo un post) nos hizo reflexionar un poco sobre la importancia de lo multimedia y de buscar y curar información relevante que nos ayude a no diseñar la rueda de nuevo, así que cada grupo hizo un tablón de pinterest para que sirviera como centro de organización de información relacionada con su futura actividad: Captura de pantalla 2014-06-30 a la(s) 01.56.36 Entonces empezamos a trabajar en estrategia metodológica –qué van a hacer tus futuros alumnos- y además tocamos lo que parece que todo el mundo opina que debería ser lo único que deberíamos dar en clase: las herramientas y, cómo no, de evaluación. Para eso tuvimos la suerte de tener en clase a Manel Rives, quien nos contó unas cuántas cosas sobre creatividad, centros de interés, lo que son capaces de hacer los alumnos y herramientas móviles para trabajar con los estudiantes.

Con esa primera aproximación, los estudiantes debían preparar su actividad para presentarla en una feria presencial que hicimos en el hall de la facultad (aquí tenéis algunas fotos de la feria ) El objetivo de la feria era presentar el “todo” preparado y recibir feedback antes de la evaluación: tanto de la profe (yo), como de los visitantes de nuestra feria, quienes después- si querían- podían rellenar una encuesta en red que dejamos disponible con un código QR que pusimos en cada stand. La nota media de nuestros visitantes fue un 8,26 (sí, son muy amables :-)) e hicieron algunos comentarios de los que os enseñamos en la siguiente nube de palabras. Captura de pantalla 2014-06-30 a la(s) 02.22.12 Con ese feedback, los estudiantes debían presentar la actividad reformulada en una página de TACKK (por uniformar decidimos esta herramienta que fuera MUY muy fácil y que dejara un resultado estéticamente similar). En esa página web debían incluirse lo que lamamos “The basics of the activity”: es decir: goals, process, teacher’s guide, assessment criteria and instrument, etc; Tutorial(s) for using the ICT tools that are used on the activity; Example of the final artifact the potential students must do.; Author’s individual PLE & reflection about the subject. Captura de pantalla 2014-06-30 a la(s) 01.40.03 Era importante que todo el proceso (sí desde el principio) se gestionase dentro de los grupos a través de una herramienta de gestión de proyectos llamada Trello que me ayudó a hacer un seguimiento más o menos al día de lo que iban haciendo mis estudiantes. Captura de pantalla 2014-06-30 a la(s) 01.56.36 El resultado de las actividades queremos que sirva en la medida de lo posible a profes, así que hemos realizado una tabla que dejamos buscable a todos los interesados y que, gracias al plugin Tablepress para WordPress, ya se ha agregado a una página de la sección “docencia” de este sitio web . [table “1” not found /]

Eso es lo que hemos hecho… ahora me queda hacer reflexión sobre el trabajo, pero lo dejaré para otro post. Quisiera agradecer sinceramente la inspiración y ayuda que mi amigo y compañero Manel Rives que me ayudó a pensar en toda la estructura del proceso y hacerlo, y obviamente quiero agradecer a mis estudiantes por el trabajo que han hecho y por ser la razón que hace que siga deseando que venga el año que viene y empezar otra vez…

¡Gracias por todo! (y van 34)

Palabras para escépticos 1

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Mil perdones por la inmensidad del post a los lectores (y a los perdidos que hayáis llegado hasta aquí)… pero creo que de vez en cuando hay que hacerlo.
Cada vez que doy (damos) una charla hablando de las bondades de las TIC en el aula, de la necesidad de repensar nuestra didáctica en estos tiempos y de todas esas cosas que nos preocupan, nos ocupan y nos fascinan, la mayoría de nuestro auditorio se corresponde con los profesionales convencidos, personas a los que en realidad no vamos a “convencer” de casi nada, que ya están tan convencidos como nosotros pero que, en el mejor de los casos, buscan ese discurso para que les sirva como detonante o como ventana a algunas cosas que no han podido ver o quieren reforzar.
Sin embargo, existe una enorme cantidad de profesionales que son “escépticos” ante ese discurso “pro-TIC” y que, por mil razones vinculadas a su práctica, su profesión y su historia, siguen sin verlo claro. Y a ellos deberíamos dirigir sin duda parte del discurso… al menos yo creo que debería ser así.
Anoche tuve la ENORME oportunidad de recibir un correo de uno de esos profes escépticos, además uno joven. Se trata de un profe de matemáticas de secundaria, vocacional, apasionado por su materia y preocupado por su quehacer (si no, no se tomaría el trabajo de escribirme un mail como el que me escribió). El mail es un mail amable, reposado y con unas cuantas preguntas y comentarios sobre la charla que di ayer tarde en las X Jornadas de Altas Capacidades de la Región de Murcia (de antemano mil gracias al equipo de Altas Capacidades de la Región de Murcia por contar conmigo para este día, ha sido un placer y un honor ser profeta en mi tierra, aunque siendo un poco extranjera en el tema :-)).

Como realmente creo que parte del trabajo que me gusta hacer pasa por contribuir en la medida de mis posibilidades a que aquellos que siguen sin ver claro esta realidad la vean, aprovecharé el mensaje de José (no le identificaré más, a menos que él quiera que le identifique) para responder a alguna de esas dudas (las preguntas suyas eran bastante más largas, espero hacer llegar la esencia) que estoy segura de que no son exclusivas suyas y que puede que contribuyan de una forma u otra a complementar su perspectiva:
Pregunta José:

“¿aplicamos actualmente en las aulas las TICs porque está de moda o porque ya se cuentan con investigaciones serias que reafirman claramente las bondades de su uso?… … Entiendo a la perfección lo que comentaba de que las nuevas generaciones están educadas en la era de las tecnologías (yo quizás también lo esté ya) pero ¿se ha debatido sobre las ventajas-desventajas de esa educación tecnológica de manera seria o simplemente se ha aceptado de que la sociedad es tecnológica y que por tanto la educación también debe serlo?”

Realmente no se trata tanto de “aplicar las TIC a la clase” como de entender que la sociedad es una sociedad TIC y que nuestra misión –la de formar ciudadanos capaces de ser felices- aunque sigue siendo la misma, ha cambiado enormemente con el contexto y que pasa por formara esos ciudadanos para un mundo con TIC.
La educación es un proceso social de adaptación del hombre a su contexto, y en esa premisa básica puedes encontrar la justificación de repensar la educación con las TIC. No se trata de una moda u otra –todos los cambios tecnológicos han sido moda en algún momento-, que las TIC (las TIC) ha venido para quedarse lo sabemos hace más de dos décadas y que esa tecnología tiene implicaciones extraordinarias en cosas básicas del mundo que afectan a la educación y a tu aula, es evidente. Si la educación pretende educar a los alumnos para la realidad y la realidad es con TIC, educarles sin TIC es educarles para un mundo que no existe.
Ahora bien, además de eso, sí, se ha debatido y comentado mucho sobre implementación de tecnologías en el aula y sus “bondades” (la investigación en tecnología educativa tiene una larga tradición, aunque puede que fallemos en la difusión de sus resultados), algunas de las referencias usadas en la presentación dan buena cuenta de esa investigación (mira por ejemplo la parte de multimedia), pero te invito a que le des un repasito a mucha de la buena investigación que sobre el particular se ha hecho en el campo de la didáctica de las matemáticas… hay más de una revista especializada y seguro que te encantará leerla.

“cuando la Conserjería gasta miles y miles de euros en dotar a sus aulas de pizarras digitales ¿lo hace para tener buena prensa o porque se respalda en investigaciones seria?”

Sinceramente la lógica de las decisiones políticas se escapa por completo a cualquier lógica que podamos aplicar, pero me temo que no, casi nunca responden a lo que dice la investigación, a menos claro que eso les de buena prensa, si nos oyeran a los investigadores en educación habría “viajes” e inversiones que se harían sin duda de otras maneras.
Decías también:

“Este tema lo relaciono yo inconscientemente mucho con aquello de las competencias básicas (como la de aprender a aprender) que no consigo entender y que, más aún, veo como una barrera para el desarrollo del buen quehacer docente (imagino que tendré que deshacerme de esta idea si finalmente terminan calando las propuestas didácticas basadas en esas competencias).”

En eso nos falta algo más que un post de blog para charlar, pero sólo por ponerte en situación con algo de investigación aunque con una aprox. de “estar por casa”: se han hecho estudios en los que se relaciona la cantidad de contenido que se aprende en la formación inicial y que continúa siendo útil al final de la vida profesional, pues bien (te daré los datos de cabeza), en los años 50s del S XX rozaba el 70%, en los 80s rozaba el 50% y en la primera década del S XXI había caído a menos del 20%… eso significa que educar profesionales con una perspectiva basada en contenidos (como el centro de la educación) es una apuesta claramente fallida. Los contenidos cambian radicalmente cada poco tiempo, y cada vez cada menos tiempo. Es imprescindible ofrecer a nuestros estudiantes la posibilidad de que aún cuando los “expertos” no estén, ellos puedan “buscarse la vida”, tener criterio, ser capaces de leer con capacidad de análisis, de buscar proactivamente, que tengan actitudes y aptitudes de trabajo con otros, de autorregulación… En un mundo de sobreabundancia de información, el reto no es meter l información en la cabeza de los estudiantes (ya la tienen en el móvil), el reto es hacerles capaces de ver esa información con sentido y de forma crítica.
Preguntaba además José:

“¿se ha investigado las consecuencias físicas que puede tener sobre los alumnos el uso de las TICs? Me explico con un ejemplo. Un alumno miope, como yo, no ve su miopía agravada con el uso de las TICs. O ¿verdaderamente uno se concentra igual leyendo sobre una pizarra que sobre un ordenador?”

Seguramente se ha hecho. En investigación médica y óptica debe haber estudios relacionados con la lectura en pantallas y la diferencias de las consecuencias físicas con la lectura en papel; además hay unos cuantos estudios sobre concentración… la pregunta es: ¿y del papel no se dice nada? ¿el papel es bueno per sé?, la verdad es que son dos temas en concreto que no me preocupan lo más mínimo. Nadie se ha planteado de manera seria los problemas que las tizas, los libros, el negocio relativo a los libros de texto, la endogamia editorial, el uso de la tinta y la proliferación de alergias, la deforestación para la creación de papel, la rigidez e incomodidad de las sillas atornilladas al suelo, la configuración ortopédica de las sillas de pala y otras tecnologías educativas más… “tradicionales” tienen sobre los estudiantes y sobre el contexto…
Finalmente José me hacía una reflexión sobre un punto que comentaba yo sobre mis clases y decía:

“Cuando en cierto punto de su exposición usa como ejemplo unos dibujos de proyecciones terrestres dice, creo que eso entendí, que la proyección de Mercator falsea los tamaños reales de los países y que esto podría tener alguna connotación política… …Puede que Mercator fuera un europeista convencido pero yo no achacaría las “deformidades” de sus proyecciones a esto. La proyección Mercator de una esfera (La Tierra) en un plano (el mapa) no conserva el área-tamaño de los planetas pero sí los ángulos (en aquel entonces la navegación era de capital importancia… …Lo curioso es que es posible demostrar, matemáticamente, si uno proyecta una esfera en un plano es imposible conservar a la vez el tamaño-área de los países, los ángulos y las distancias en escala. La proyección de Marcator conserva los ángulos; hay otras que conservan las áreas pero no los ángulos o las distancias.”

Efectivamente, la proyección de Mercator es una de las posibles conversiones de una “esfera” (la tierra) en un plano (el mapa), pero esa conversión no sólo responde a una serie de parámetros geométricos, para hacer esa conversión se toman decisiones conscientes (qué queda arriba y abajo, dónde se da el corte, por qué se decide hacer esa conversión basada en ángulos y no otras) y esas decisiones conscientes responden a un marco contextual político, social y económico determinado. Mercator no era un europeísta (no sé si lo era, vaya :-)), era europeo, en tiempos de colonia, poner a Europa en el centro del mapa (el corte que “abre” la esfera está en el pacífico y no en el Atlántico y no es baladí), no es casual, como no lo es ninguna de las representaciones de la realidad en los medios.
No tengo nada en contra del señor Mercator ni de su esfuerzo ímprobo por dotar de un plano a los navegantes de su momento, el “problema” surge cuando pretendemos educar a las personas en verdades absolutas desde proyecciones parciales de la realidad sin hacerles conscientes de esa parcialidad. La gran mayoría de los “occidentales” de hoy no son conscientes de las “imperfecciones” de las proyecciones geográficas y gracias a eso entendemos que somos (Europa es) casi tan grandes como América del Sur, que África no es TAN grande, que Méjico es una pequeña “cola” que e sale a EEUU por abajo y que el sur está abajo (no sería la primera vez que un adulto con formación superior se sorprende al jugar al geopuzzle conmigo :-)). El ejercicio que hago yo con mis estudiantes, futuros maestros, tiene que ver con que sean conscientes de que cada representación de la realidad que usan en clase responde a unas decisiones concretas que le hacen como es, y que sólo siendo conscientes de las implicaciones que esas decisiones tienen sobre el medio y sobre la percepción de la realidad de nuestros estudiantes, podremos usar los medios en clase de una manera responsable (no neutral, nunca lo es).
Decía José:

“Reconozco de entrada que vengo siendo un gran incrédulo de las posibles ventajas que pueden traer las nuevas tecnologías a las aulas. Al mismo tiempo, admito creer ser incrédulo por desconocer las posibles potencialidades (mayormente porque el tiempo que me queda para investigar estas cosas es limitado pero también porque, creo, no estoy motivado suficientemente para preocuparme por ello).”

Por todo eso, por tu valentía al escribirme y por compartir conmigo tus inquietudes, espero sinceramente que mis palabras sirvan de algo, aunque sea para hacerte seguir pensando en estas cosas que creo sinceramente que deben seguir ocupándonos y preocupándonos.
Ojalá mis “respuestas” (ojalá tuviéramos tiempo para charlar) abran alguna vía más de reflexión par tu trabajo.
Hasta más ver.

(Español) La evaluación como parte crucial del proceso de enseñanza y como promotor del proceso de aprendizaje: una reflexión de una experiencia

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Sorry, this entry is only available in Español.

Este año, como llevo haciendo hace un par de años, he querido hacer una aproximación ”diferente” a uno de los contenidos más áridos de una de las asignaturas de las que soy responsable “Organización escolar y recursos educativos” del primer año del Grado en Educación Primaria. El contenido es, en concreto, la organización de los centros de educación primaria y sus particularidades según la ley. 

Confieso que es un contenido que me resulta particularmente árido y que creo que aprenderlo de memoria sólo deja un enorme rastro de ignorancia y tiempo perdido en todos los miembros de una clase (los estudiantes aprendiéndoselo y los profesores corrigiendo exámenes de memoria que no prueban nada sobre lo que los estudiantes sabrán cuando vayan el año que viene a los centros en su primera experiencia de prácticas). Perdonad que me enrolle un poco contandooslo:

La idea es organizar un sencillo juego de Snakes & Ladders (si fuese en español sería una Oca, pero es el grupo bilingüe ;-)) pero que para moverse haga falta responder a unas preguntas sobre el tema. La particularidad de la experiencia radica en cómo se elaboran las preguntas: en primer lugar se pide a los grupos que realicen un “resumen” de los aspectos más importantes de la ley, referida a 6 temas cruciales relacionados con la organización escolar usando un mapa conceptual para hacer tal resumen (deben usar una herramienta online para hacer el mapa, a su elección). Después un grupo se convierte en “especialista” en un tema y evalúa todos los CMaps de ese tema (usando un cuestionario en GDocs que ha preparado la profesora), elaborando además un único mapa unificado con los asuntos más importantes que hace público en el mismo día (aquí podéis ver algunos de los mapas). Los dos mejores grupos (por calidad de los CMaps) reciben una recompensa en forma de nota en la asignatura.

Usando ese grupo de mapas unificados finales, todos los grupos deben preparar 4 preguntas por cada tema (total 24 preguntas) en un formato específico (tarjetas blancas de 9X5 cm), y al volver a clase nuevamente se dividirán por grupos especialistas (los temas de especialidad cambian) que evaluarán los grupos de preguntas (con otro cuestionario preparado por la profesora) y elegirán las 8 preguntas que se incluirán en el concurso final. Todos los grupos hacen público el enunciado de todas las preguntas evaluadas. Los dos mejores grupos (por calidad de las preguntas) reciben una recompensa en forma de nota en la asignatura.

Luego se juega al S&L y los dos mejores clasificados tienen una recompensa en la nota final de la asignatura. (las tres recompensas pueden ser acumulables)

Valga decir que, a fin de evaluar la evaluación por pares y de matizar la parcialidad de los grupos a la hora de juzgar a otros grupos y a sí mismos, la profesora revisa también los mapas y las preguntas y en caso de necesidad incluye su criterio en la evaluación. Y, en aquellos casos donde se aprecie una diferencia excesiva entre la evaluación de ella y del grupo, o una parcialidad intencionada, intentará corregirse y se penalizará al grupo evaluador en sus posibilidades de conseguir recompensa.

Importante: ninguno de los pasos tiene repercusiones negativas directas importantes en la nota final de los grupos.

Se trata, como en el caso de todas las actividades que propongo a mis alumnos (y en las que a veces tenemos más o menos éxito) de un intento desesperado por enfatizar en los niveles de procesamiento cognitivo que entiendo más importantes (y que son los que aparecen arria del todo desde la taxonomía de Bloom (1956) y en las revisiones posteriores, hasta la de Marzano (2004)): Crear y Evaluar por parte de ellos, de los estudiantes.

CREAR siendo capaces de re-crear el contenido de la ley (en este caso de las dos leyes LOE y LOMCE que al final se combinan) y de crear preguntas de una única respuesta posible, pero cuya respuesta no exista estrictamente y literalmente en la ley, y por otra parte EVALUAR de forma rigurosa, los aspectos más importantes del trabajo de sus compañeros (formato, claridad, extensión, dificultad, pertinencia, valor y relevancia).

Acabo de revisar los mapas, las preguntas y las puntuaciones de los grupos y el resultado es estupendo, me encanta (jugaremos a la vuelta de Pascua). El trabajo realizado es francamente estupendo (no sé si recordarán alguna de las respuestas, pero dominan la ley y han sido capaces de darle muchas vueltas y de pensarla mucho… de aquí a que ejerzan igual cambia, pero ellos estarán preparados para verla) y la valoración del trabajo es sorprendentemente ajustada, incluso a mis criterios. Si hay un poco más de variación radica en la valoración de los mapas conceptuales y creo que se debe a que no expliqué en profundidad qué es un mapa conceptual y me temo que lo han confundido con otros tipos de representación mental.

Creo que, al menos en este caso y en concreto en la educación formal, el componente de la evaluación, como nivel de procesamiento del conocimiento para los estudiantes les permite un trabajo verdaderamente profundo con el temario (evaluar es una capacidad superior que los aprendices deben experimentar) y creo además que saber que su trabajo, tanto de creación como de evaluación, es evaluado por sus iguales y por el profesor y además saber claramente cómo se evalúa, les motiva y hace que todo el esfuerzo merezca la pena.

Solemos quejarnos los profesores amargamente -y ácidamente- sobre la poca gana de nuestros estudiantes de trabajar, de ir más allá, pero solemos también ofrecerles pocos incentivos a ese trabajo intenso… Ahora es el momento en que preguntamos ¿y la motivación intrínseca? ¿y el deseo de aprender así en grande?, pero ¿cómo saben nuestros estudiantes que han aprendido? ¿qué referencia tienen? ¿acaso vale con su “sensación” de que piensan diferente? ¿que se sienten menos perdidos? ¿más?…

Creo que la evaluación -entendida evidentemente como algo más que la evaluación sumativa final- es una parte fundamental del proceso de enseñanza (si, y en ed. formal hablamos de enseñanza, no me cansaré de decirlo, no es ninguna palabrota), reconducir el trabajo, dar pistas de los problemas, ampliar la perspectiva, dar la palmadita en la espalda… todo eso son cosas que motivan el aprendizaje y que se hacen en la evaluación (la autoevaluación, la por pares y la de expertos)… sin duda son cosas que en los contextos menos formales (imaginad vuestra red personal de aprendizaje) esperamos recibir en diversos formatos… y si, desde mi perspectiva hace parte crucial del proceso de aprendizaje.

¿Hay aprendizaje sin evaluación? seguramente, pero ¿significa eso que la evaluación no haga parte del proceso? de ninguna manera… al menos esa es mi perspectiva.

Ya la racionalidad técnica (la teoría pedagógica) me lo decían, pero además la racionalidad práctica (experiencia de profe) me lo confirma una y otra vez (esto ha sido sólo un ejemplo). Sí la evaluación SÍ hace parte y NO, no sólo la evaluación no está sobrevalorada, sino que está infrautilizada y malograda.  Al menos eso es lo que creo yo.
___________
A propósito del momentazo de mi amigo J. en un #hangoutON que ha corrido como la pólvora en la red y que reza lo de “la evaluación NO forma parte del aprendizaje”.

Dr. Adell, no me lo tenga usted en cuenta 😉

Gamificación: explorando qué podía haber más allá de los estimulitos.

Gamificación: explorando qué podía haber más allá de los estimulitos.

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Allá por junio del año pasado os contaba algunos de los pensamientos que me ocupaban cuando pensaban en esa palabra tan trendy que es la “gamificación”.

Carles Bellver (@carlesbellver), alguien que no suele ser de opinión –ni simpatía- fácil y por eso aprecio tanto todas las suyas, me comentó a cuenta de ese post algunas buenas ideas sobre aquello que aporta la gamificación y, aunque había más cosas, recuerdo que me quedó sonando en la cabeza un par de palabras que me parecieron básicas: motivación y evaluación formativa.

Así que este primer cuatrimestre, con mis compañeros de asignatura (Isabel Gutiérrez y Jose Luis Serrano Sánchez), decidimos emprender una aventura más ligada al desarrollo de la asignatura de TIC y Educación Social aunque, a diferencia de la parte del trabajo por roles (en el que hay mucha más literatura científica que nos echaba manos y además ya acumulamos algunos años de experiencia), fuera una aventura para probar. Hemos leído alguna cosita de gamificación, aunque hay poco que nos bajara “tanto” a la realidad… así que hemos ido probando… por eso no es este un post para “sentar bases” de nada, sólo es un post para compartir nuestras impresiones y motivaciones.

Teníamos claro que nuestros Badgets tenían que cumplir con las dos características de las que os hablaba más arriba: debían servir para motivar el trabajo de nuestros estudiantes –especialmente el que se centra en las áreas más complicadas- y tenían que reforzar el carácter formativo de la evaluación que creemos indispensable, y para ello debían cumplir con varias premisas:

    • Puede haber badges “puntuales” y “competitivos” pero esos actuarán como los estimulitos de Miss Sonia (o los “minipuntos”) y aportarán poco a la evaluación formativa, por eso debemos hacer que sean sólo anecdóticos.
    • El objetivo NO es generar competición entre los estudiantes, es motivarles.
    • Los badges básicos deberían implementarse estructuralmente en la evaluación de la aignatura, no deben ser accesorios.
    • Cada uno de los badgets tiene que tener repercusión en la nota de los estudiantes (lo que no se califica es ignorado sistemáticamente por los estudiantes), pero mantener los badgets y/o mejorarlos debe tener una recompensa “extra”.
    • Para que la mejora tenga lugar es imprescindible que haya “niveles” en los badges. No se trata sólo de hacer algo “bien”, sino de tener además posibilidad de mejora.
    • Por eso mismo deben estar ligados preferentemente a los aspectos cruciales del trabajo.
    • Perder el badge es posible perderlo… y con el todos los “beneficios extra” de los que hablábamos antes… debemos mantener el nivel de interés (motivación).

Con estos básicos (y usando la herramienta ClassBadges: http://classbadges.com) establecimos algunos badges básicos y los pusimos en juego.
Como en el caso de los roles de los que hablamos en un post anterior, os los ponemos tal cual los propusimos a los estudiantes y esperamos sinceramente vuestros comentarios o sugerencias al respecto.

Badges en juego en #esytic1314:

Pensador de plata: la reflexión de la semana de nuestro grupo suele ser mayoritariamente reflexión dialógica o crítica (valga apuntar que la clase sobre tipos de reflexión y formas de hacerla la dimos el primer día de clase).

Pensador de oro: la mayoría de nuestras reflexiones son reflexiones críticas.

Traductor novel: las definiciones aportadas tienen calidad y suelen ser reelaboraciones valiosas del conocimiento.

Traductor maestro: el contenido de los términos incluidos en el glosario es de excelente calidad formal y de contenido, son reelaboraciones valiosas del conocimiento.

Curador novel: recopila y organiza de manera esquemática información relevante en diferentes formatos e idiomas. La información es actual. Se incluyen más de 5 referencias además de las propuestas por los profesores como básicas.

Maestro Curador: recopila y organiza en un mapa mental digital las referencias de la información usada en diferentes formatos e idiomas, La información es actual. Se incluyen más de 5 referencias además de las propuestas por los profesores como básicas y el esquema explicita el proceso que se ha seguido en el uso de esa información en el marco de la actividad.

Confieso que el resultado de la experiencia fue interesante, aunque en términos de motivación es peor de lo que nos esperábamos y el trabajo de mantener este tipo de feedback es MUY exigente para los profes (imaginaos en un horizonte de 80 alumnos por aula); no obstante, creemos que en algunos casos tener claro el horizonte ha servido para aumentar la motivación y creemos que pueden ser una forma de llamar la atención sobre rúbricas de evaluación preestablecidas o de hacer más autoevaluación del trabajo por parte de los alumnos antes de entregar los trabajos.
Lo dicho, es nuestra experiencia y como tal la compartimos con vosotros, esperamos que os sea de alguna utilidad.

Roles para el trabajo en equipo: experiencias y nuevos caminos

Roles para el trabajo en equipo: experiencias y nuevos caminos

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Desde hace unos años mis estudiantes y yo llevamos a cabo las asignaturas con un trabajo basado en tareas que llevan a cabo ellos -siempre les digo que mi objetivo es trabajar lo menos posible- en grupos formados por entre 6 y 8 miembros. Estos grupos, además de la tarea que tengan pendiente cada semana, asumen de forma rotativa una serie de roles que incluyen determinadas responsabilidades dentro del grupo.
Después de 4 cursos (en cada curso solemos trabajar 3-4 asignaturas con este modelo) trabajando de esta manera, hemos probado algunos roles que tengo ganas de compartir con vosotros, para ver qué os parecen:

El Facilitador
Suele ser el jefe de grupo esa semana, reparte roles, organiza el trabajo, recibe instrucciones extraordinarias si las hay, está pendiente del trabajo del grupo y resuelve conflictos internos y externos

El Historiador
Es el encargado de contar la historia del grupo. Hace la crónica de la semana y nos da pistas de cómo han organizado los días y cómo han trabajado. Se le suele pedir que sea muy multimedia en su relato… Total libertad.

El explorador
Debe echar vistazos al entorno e incluir en el blog de grupo una reseña de al menos un sitio interesante en la Web para su profesión (y en relación con el contenido de la asignatura), y de algo de alguno de los blogs de sus compañeros que le haya llamado la atención. En ambos casos es imprescindible comentar en el sitio original y hacer la reseña en el propio blog

El analista
Evalúa -con arreglo a una rúbrica básica- el desempeño de cada uno de sus compañeros. Además lidera la reflexión de aprendizaje del grupo. Suele tener algunas pistas de qué reflexión le pedimos, debe responder a cosas como ¿qué se pretendía en la tarea?,¿qué habéis aprendido?¿qué te va a ser útil en el futuro?¿qué es lo más inútil de la tarea?¿lo más divertido?…. Entre otras varias (a las preguntas de estas reflexiones le hemos dado muchas vueltas, especialmente con el profesor Jordi Adell de la UJI con quien solemos compartir calentamientos de cabeza relativos a nuestras clases, porque son seguramente lo que más echamos en falta, la reflexión de los estudiantes).

Estrella
Es el encargado de representar al grupo. Es la voz del grupo en las puestas en común de los trabajos, así como el protagonista del artefacto que estemos construyendo en cada actividad (si, normalmente las actividades tienen un “artefacto” final para hacer) sea éste un vídeo, una presentación en pechakucha, un debate…

El administrador
Que se encarga del blog y la vida 2.0 del grupo. Revisa los posts de estilo y forma, tuitea, administra las cuentas 2.0 que se vaya creando el grupo, responde a los comentarios, etc… En fin! Se encarga de la Identidad digital del grupo.

Estos venían siendo “los clásicos”, las preguntas de la reflexión han ido cambiando, algunos roles se han juntado (por consejo de los estudiantes o a la vista de resultados) aumentando las funciones de algunos (facilitador-administrador, por ejemplo; aunque este cuatrimestre hemos compartido la asignatura de Educación Social con mis compañeros Isabel Gutiérrez y José Luis Serrano -con los que afortunadamente comparto asignatura e ideas ;-))- y hemos reformulado esos y hemos incorporado dos roles nuevos:

El curador
El miembro del grupo que debe organizar en un mapa mental (se recomienda el uso de una herramienta de mindmapping en red) las referencias (sí la referencia en APA Style -la broma del Gangham style ya la hemos hecho ;-)) de todos los recursos que usaban para documentar y trabajar las actividades, de manera que tuviéramos -ellos y nosotros- una visión de las fuentes de información que se usan en la asignatura.

El Traductor

Que debe elegir los 5 términos clave que se trabajan en cada actividad y definirlos con sus propias palabras -pero con base en la literatura- en menos de 500 palabras cada uno.

Este cuatrimestre he vuelto a reformular para el trabajo con mis alumnos del grupo bilingüe (#soyer1314), he juntado roles, y he creado uno nuevo que agrega labores al curador y que además por primera vez tiene una herramienta concreta asociada (no suelo usar marcas en clase…

The curator-farmer
Básicamente es el mismo curador, pero ahora además de las APA Style, debe cultivar, con toda la info de las fuentes de información usadas ubicadas en red, y de los sitios donde dejan huellas o visitan, el árbol del grupo en Pearltrees

La experiencia ha resultado apasionante…. los resultados son muy variados… Y, aunque tengo “evidencias” del cambio para bien en mis estudiantes (responsabilidad, impicación, experiencia de organización, etc.), NO creo que haya receta alguna que vaya bien en todas partes y que obre milagros en ningún aula… Así que esto no es un recetario, sólo quería compartir con vosotros algo más de lo que hacemos en nuestras clases, por si alguien quiere comentarlo, ofrecernos mejoras, o simplemente quiere usarlo -como ejemplo o contraejemplo ;-)-
Ah! Por cierto! Este año con Isabel y Jose estuvimos experimentando con badges asociados al trabajo de algunos de estos roles y su repercusión en la nota final… Si, gamificación… Pero creo que eso os lo contaré en otro post… A ver si lo hago pronto 😉