LearningForward

Kent Chesnut's technology in education blog.

It’s been years since I looked at - or even thought about - any of Apple’s Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) information.  However, a guest post by Sherman Nicodemus on Wes Fryers Speed of Creativity blog (see blog roll) in March spurred both my memory and my interest.  Sherman noted that Apple no longer had the ACOT 10 year report online, but did provide a link where it could be found (here). 

The ACOT research was done from 1985 - 1995 with the primary goal of understanding how sufficient technology and good professional support can affect teaching learning in real classrooms.  I reread the report yesterday - and found it still very relevant.

Some highlights from the report:

•  Apple supplied 2 computers to each student and teacher to ensure that the technology was available at (almost) any time.  Wow!  Contrast that to many of today’s 1:1 programs that supply easily transported laptops - and then don’t allow the students to take them from the school!
• The table on page 13 describing the differences between the ACOT and traditional classrooms is extremely relevant in today’s discussions of what learning should be.  A snapshot is shown below. 

• The stages of teacher adoption table on page 16 should also prove instructive for moving classrooms to a more learner centered approach.  See the snapshot below.

• Without going into any specifics, I’ll spit out a few more terms / concepts that are at least mentioned in the paper.
  • Learner control
  • Constructivism
  • Peer teaching
  • Wireless technologies (in the 80’s and 90’s???)
  • Create / Communicate / Collaberate
  • Reduced lectures
  • Inquiry driven
  • PD in a real classroom
  • Use of communications to access remote experts
  • Use of professional tools
  • Authentic learning experiences
  • Authentic assessment

Many of us older folks who’ve been around educational technology for quite a while have probably heard about the ACOT project in the past… maybe even read the ACOT report years ago… I recommend a re-read.  Many of the younger folks in the ed tech field may never have heard of ACOT.  The paper is an easy read of 24 pages - I recommend it highly.

As usual, I’d appreciate any input readers may have.

Several events over the last few weeks have got me thinking about authenticity in eLearning.  The ODLA Conference for one; and I’ve started re-reading Michael Allen’s Guide to e-Learning (highly recommended).  Both have me thinking about the effectiveness of eLearning.  Is authenticity an important factor in eLearning effectiveness?  I think so!

I decided to try to put together a list of types of eLearning in order from least authentic to most authentic (IMHO).

1. Page turner application with quiz when complete.
   I consider this about the least authentic form of eLearning available.  Content is generated (possibly that old PowerPoint that was used in class) in the form of a linear application.  The user reads the information (analyzes the graphs, …) on the page and then advances to the next page.  When all of the material has been read, the student takes a quiz.  A variety of media (pictures, videos) can be added to this format - without really affecting the authenticity of the student’s experience.
   I would consider this type of eLearning pretty ineffective, in general.  I suspect it is usually boring.  However, I think it could be effective for highly motivated students.
2. Page turner application with embedded questions.
   Again, the learner proceeds through the content in a linear fashion.  Occasionally, the learner is provided a question to ensure that they are, indeed, attending to the content.  Such questions could be included rarely or on each page of information.  As before, a variety of media can be added to this format.  An example of instruction at this level would be my older Diabetes @ School (here) program.  Note that this module requires a one-time download of the Authorware player.
   I do believe this form of instruction would be more engaging to the students than the first level, but I don’t think it will be as effective as the forms described below.
3. Demonstration application.
   The learner watches a model perform some sort of procedure.  This could be video based or possibly a series of images.  The model should be elaborating on his thoughts as he performs the activity.  The learner may be required to answer questions embedded in the instruction or with a quiz when the instruction is complete.  An example of this level would be the use of Captivate (or similar program) to capture computer interactions to demonstrate for users.
   This is the first level to include any context for the activity to be learned.
   It is quite possible that this level is out of place!

4. Programmed Instruction.
   Programmed instruction is much like the page turner with embedded questions but with an important and powerful improvement.  The instruction can branch based on the student’s answers to the questions.  A struggling student can be provided extra instruction and practice.  A student who has mastered a concept already can be allowed to skip redundant instruction.  Still, the instruction is basically decontextualized and the student activity is not authentic to very many tasks.

5. Scenario based eLearning with authentic context and learner control.
   At this level, the instruction attempts to provide an authentic context for the activity to take place within.  A problem for the learner is posed within the context.  The user must perform an activity to resolve the problem.  The activity itself may still be rather contrived, but the more realistic the better.  Various supports (resources) for the learner are provided.  Usually, the learner determines which resources are to be accessed and in which order they should be accessed to try to solve the problem.  The newer version of the Diabetes @ School 2008, A (school) year in the life of a student with type 1 diabetes, program would be (I think) an example of instruction at this level (see link here). 
   I think this level of instruction can begin to reach into the area of constuctivism (but not necessarily so). 

6. Partial simulation of the task to be completed in somewhat realistic context (instructional interactivity).
   A simulation of the task environment complete enough to allow the student to do the task to be learned.  The task itself is similar to the task the learner would complete in the real world. 
   An example would be the use of branching capability built into Captivate to create eLearning where the learner is led through the procedure to be learned - having to press the correct buttons in the correct order to move through the proper screens to complete the procedure to be learned, for example. 
   This instruction could be constructivistic (inquiry or discovery based) or more instructivistic (didactic or instruction controlled).  

7. Full simulation of task to be complete in realistic context.
   The task environment is fully (or pretty fully) simulated.  Both the task and the context are very authentic.  The learner performs a very realistic representation of the task in a virtual environment very similar to the real environment.  Again, this could be constructivistic or didactic.
   An example would be a user interface of a fully simulated device.  The user could be asked to configure the device for a specific application - the program could evaluate if the configuration is correct.

8. Student generated simulations.
   Ouch!  The only constructionist option of the bunch.  The student could create simulations in Scratch or Netlogo to demonstrate their understanding of a concept or procedure.  This type of project would be very hard to evaluate automatically, likely requiring a person to evaluate the student simulations.

Ok, so aspects of these levels could be combined to form a bunch of different levels.  But I wanted to put something down to consider and reflect upon. 

So what’s the purpose of these levels?  What can I do with them?  As I consider any eLearning, I plan to

• Evaluate any strategy I’m considering to see which of these levels it fits into.
• Consider the costs and benefits to moving the instructional strategy to a higher level. 

Any comments?  Have I omitted levels?  Are my levels out of order (in terms of authenticity)?  I’m always happy to hear what any reader may think.

My youngest son’s 7th grade Science class just finished a chapter on cell division and DNA.  DNA Replication is a key concept in cell division.  Each strand of DNA divides into 2 half-strands (which are not identical).  Then each half reconnects with free bases within the cell to for 2 new strands of DNA which are identical to the original strand.

Key Concepts:

• There are 4 bases the are used to make the rung of the DNA double helix “ladder”.
• 2 bases combine to form each rung.
• The 4 bases are Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Guanine (G), and Cytosine (C).
• Adenine binds only with Thymine (A-T or T-A) to form a rung.
• Guanine binds only with Cytosine (G-C or C-G) to form a rung in the DNA ladder.

 My goal with this project was to consider what type of a constructivist / constructionist project a 7th grade student could generate to help them understand the concept of DNA replication.  I utterly failed at this - instead ended up investigating the capabilities of Scratch to build a game like activity to illustrate DNA replication.

A screenshot of the project is shown at the right.  Run the project by clicking here.  Download the project file here.

OK, so the project does make an activity that students could use to practice DNA replication and, hopefully, understand how the DNA strand can replicate itself.  But why was the project a failure?  Because it’s way too difficult for a 7th grader!

I believe the following parts of the program to be much too difficult for a typical 7th grader:

• Checking to see if the strand is reconstructed correctly.  Have a look at the “when I receive Checkit” block in each of the Rightx sprites.
• The concept of constructing the bases as generic left and right, each one having a state (essentially the base type T,A,C,G) controlled by a variable.
• Randomizing the DNA strand each time the program is run requires the state concept above and is beyond the reach of most 7th graders.

Suppose a 7th grader actually wanted to create a project like this?  What could (s)he make?  I’m speculating here - but I suggest that such a project created by a 7th grade Science student in a reasonable time (say 2 hours) could have the following attributes:

• Starts with a full DNA strand that looks something like the one in my project.
• Rips the DNA strand apart leaving the right side as 9 separate sprites that retain their type (T,A,C,G).
• Allow the user to drag the right sprites onto the left strand.
• Provide instructions for the user to follow to check to see if the DNA strand has be replicated properly.

I want to consider here the great constructivist / instructivist debate.  Which is more valuable for the student when trying to learn the basics of DNA replication?

A. Practice DNA replication a few times by running a more automated activity like I created  (Instructivist approach).

• Very efficient in terms of time… student can practice the process many times in the 2 hours that it would take build the simpler project himself.
• The puzzle nature of the activity will be engaging to some students.
• There’s no guarantee that running the program even a large number of times will result in the student attaching biological meaning to what he is doing.
• Probably the better approach if the instructional objective is for the student to be able to fill in a DNA chain on a test.

B. Create the less capable project… essentially having to learn the DNA replication process to be able to build the project (Constructivist approach) and having the project available as an artifact to discuss / explain DNA replication (Constructionist approach).

• Students may get too bound up in the Scratch implementation to really think about what is happening biologically.
• Will take longer than simply running the activity.
• Students who complete the project will probably have a better understanding of DNA replication than those who ran the program.  I believe this is true and that the main cause of the better understanding would be the thinking and planning that go into building an interaction to illustrate DNA replication.
• Probably the better approach if the instructional objective is for the student to be able to describe to others how DNA replication works.

I’d be really interested in any reader response to this analysis.  What do you think?  And if you’re a teacher, which would you rather have (the instructivist activity or the constructivist project) and why.

Oops!  I apologize for the misspellings in the project file… I think I fixed them in the post.

Wow!  It’s been 7 weeks since I posted.  That’s a long gap, even by my lax standards.

 For the next few posts, I’ll be looking at Scratch as a tool for simulating events.  Since my interest in this is mainly education, most of these will be simulating a school problem.

The problem for this simulation came to me as a text message from my daughter Brittany… something like this…

“2 bicycles start 20 km apart and move toward each other at 10 km / hour.  A fly flies  between the bicycles at 30 km/hour until they crash together smashing the fly.  How far does the fly fly?”

The statement of the problem leads one to start drawing lines back and forth between the converging bicycles.  This is the hard way to work the problem.  I responded to Brit’s text with a question… “How long until the bicycles crash together?”  Thinking of the problem this way leads to a very simple solution.

I wondered, however, if there is educational merit to actually seeing the problem unfold in a simulation.  I believe building this simulation would be possible for someone at Brit’s level (High School Senior, good programming skills, taking Physics).  I decided to simulate the problem in Scratch in order to investigate the educational opportunities for a student faced with such a problem. 

A screenshot of the program is shown to the right.  I substituted cats for the bicycles and a butterfly for the fly for ease (as Scratch came preloaded with those graphics).

Run the project by clicking here (click on the green flag to start the animation).  The project is available here.  Note that Scratch 1.4 or later is needed to open the project.

So what’s difficult about this simulation? 

• Setting up scaling.
  The cats start 20 KM apart and the Scratch screen has 480 horizontal pixels.  Therefore, I chose to let each KM be 20 pixels. 
• Setting relative velocities.
  I don’t really care how fast the cats and the butterfly move, but their relative velocities must match those of the problem statement.  I chose to let the cats move toward each other at the variable “Speed” pixels per simulation iteration.  So “Speed” was defined as the speed of the cats.  Since the butterfly moves 3 times as fast as the cats, the butterfly moves 3x”Speed” pixels each iteration.
• Calculating the actual distance moved.
  The velocities are in pixels / iteration, but the problem needs an answer in kilometers.  The distance moved is simply the butterfly velocity / the number of pixels per KM.

So the simulation is probably doable, but challenging for a High School Physics student with some Scratch experience and reasonable programming skills.  But would the exercise of creating the simulation be a worthwhile educational endeavor?  Reasons I believe the exercise might be worthwhile include:

•  The simulation provides an method for a student who doesn’t see the easy solution to still solve the problem.  If the simulation included the flight time as a displayed variable, the student may make the connection between the butterfly speed and the time to the collision.  I believe such ”aha!” moments are powerful learning times for students. 
• The activity certainly falls under the Constructivist category.  As such, student learning may prove deeper and more transferrable than just working the problem.

I’d appreciate reader feedback…

• Would such a simulation be a worthwhile educational effort? 
• If so, what benefits to the student do you see from such an effort?

Next time… we’ll look at a fairly complex simulation in Scratch.

One of the things I would really like to achieve in my lifetime is to improve the educational outcomes for a significant number of kids.  To this end I read and study educational theories.  I teach informal educational classes (like the Scratch Class last week).  But I’m not making the impact I’d like to have.  So I continue to look for groups who have similar / compatible goals - maybe I could work with them???

A few weeks ago I read about e-Learning for Kids.  The following quote is from the e-Learning for Kids about us page…

“In today’s complex world, children’s futures are determined by their ability to master the basics of reading, science, math and computers. Yet costs, class sizes and other issues often prevent children access to quality online learning that can support and reinforce these essential skills.

Our vision is to be the source for childhood learning on the Internet – available from anywhere and without charge. Established in late 2004, e-Learning for Kids is a global, nonprofit foundation dedicated to fun and free learning on the Internet for children ages 5 - 12.”

Wow!  Global vision.  Improved educational outcomes for significant numbers of kids.  On the surface, this group appears to be working in the direction I’d like to pursue. 

I’ve worked through 6 - 8 of the short (20 - 30 minute) courses available on the website.  The lessons appear to be pretty well designed, very supplantive (all of the instructional strategy appears to be built into the lesson itself - as opposed to a generative strategy), and supply very little user control (some do allow user to select the order that information is encountered, but some basically lead the user through the material).

 For example, the featured course at this time is “Science - States of Matter” about solids, liquids and gases.  The lesson is designed as a pretty straightforward concept lesson.  The lesson proceeds as follows:

• Objectives are listed and read by a narrator.
• Professor Beaker introduces himself.  Professor Beaker narrates the remainder of the course.
• The student signs in with his name and age.
• The lesson proceeds along a path, encompassing: “What is Matter?”; ”Changing States of Matter.”;  and “Identifying States of Matter.”  The lesson will progress through these sequentially - or you can jump to a different section at any time.  I’ll assume you allow the lesson to proceed along sequentially.
• What is Matter?  The student is presented with examples of solids, liquids, gases.  The student is not specifically given a list of criteria for determining the state of each example, but hints are given… for example, it is noted that the example liquids will run through your fingers.
• Changing States of Matter.  The student drags a beaker of water to a freezer and then onto a burner to observe it changing states.
• Identifying States of Matter.  The student practices identifying states of matter by dragging items into Solid, Liquid, or Gas category.  When the student presses submit, he is shown the incorrect classifications and allowed to try them again.  When all the items are categorized correctly, the program proceeds to the Summary.
• Summary.  A short summary of what the student has accomplished is presented.

Analysis

• If you’ve read this blog, you know I lean toward constructivism / constructionism.  I would like to see students creating projects that are personally meaningful.  I would like to see students pursuing authentic real world tasks in their studies.  (See my about page here for more details.)  I really don’t think the e-Learning for Kids courses I’ve viewed do this very well.  But is it possible to pre-package such projects and authentic tasks when considering the widely varying cultures of the world?  Or are projects even practical in individualized (no feedback from peers or instructor) eLearning?  I’ll need to do some thinking and investigating on this topic.
• Would such a group even be interested in my participation?

Conclusion

I’ll forgo any decision about instructivism vs. constructivism in the e-Learning for Kids courses for now.  I’d like to see the group’s course development criteria for information / direction on this.

I’ve e-mailed the e-Learning For Kids organization to inquire about their course development criteria.  I assume if they would be interested in my participation, they’ll provide some documetation on how their development process works. 

Note for XO users - OLPC is listed as an NGO Partner on the e-Learning for Kids website.  All of the courses I’ve worked through are Flash based.  I’ve tried several on the XO Laptop.  In most of the courses I’ve tried, the animations are too slow on the XO.

The “conversation with your computer” program I described in my last post (see here) is progressing very slowly… I’m just not putting the time I need to into it!  I’ll try to get a proto up this month.

But another question has captured my (often fleeting) attention.  Have you ever attended a class in which you were simply told to follow instructions… do this, then that, then whatever?  No attempt was made to motivate the importance (or even to explain the purpose) of the activities.  Were you left feeling like a 2nd grader (at least that’s how I perceive 2nd graders are treated in normal elementary classrooms)?  When I thought on this, I realized that I’ve probably taught kids’ classes in a Church setting using strategies similar to that!  I’ve committed to always do better.  But what does better mean?  I think this means that students must be treated as partners in their education!  And I believe student buy-in to the learning task is very important to this goal.

But how important is student buy-in in learning?  How does buy-in affect the achievement of learning objectives?  I don’t know the answer… but I’d like to lay out a few ideas and look for a path to follow for investigating this question… and ask for any input readers may have.

There’s probably a better, more technically accurate term for what I’m calling “buy-in”, but I can’t think of it at the moment.  I define buy-in as: 

• Explaining to students the relevance and importance (worthwhileness?) of an activity or topic before beginning instruction.
• Soliciting feedback from students regarding their impression on whether the activity or topic is worthwhile - and addressing their concerns - before beginning instruction. 
• Allowing students to take part in discussions / decisions on how the topic will be covered and assessed.  This may be pretty tough - but in line with Alfie Kohn’s Choices for Children article.

It seems clear to me that student buy-in could:

• take more time and effort than simply covering content.
• enhance student intrinsic motivation (if the instruction is really relevant and they understand how it is relevant).  If the teacher can’t provide a good argument for how the instruction is relevant to the students, intrinsic motivation probably won’t be aided.
• allow children to function as a partner in their education - instead of a vessel to be filled with knowledge.
• provide the children with the self-respect associated with being a partner with adults. 

Questions to consider:

• Is student buy-in typically solicited in school (elementary, secondary, or post-secondary) classrooms? 
• What is the ”educational” term for “buy-in”?
• Is there research examining the importance of buy-in in learning?
• How is “buy-in” related to pedagogy?  Traditional education?  Project based learning?  Constructivism?  Constructionism?
• What are the costs of soliciting student buy-in?  (in terms of time, …?)
• What are the costs of not soliciting student buy-in?

I’ll be looking into these questions… but I’m not sure where to start.  If a reader has any ideas or input, I’d sure like to hear them!

I’ve been thinking a lot about language learning lately.  I’m learning Spanish slowly… OK, very slowly.  One of the activities in learning a language is writing in it… in this case, writing about learning it.   I’ve pulled the following from my practice wiki.

“Estoy aprendiendo la idioma español.  Hay muchos partes aprender una idioma nueva.  Algunos de los partes inclue

• Vocabulario 
  Necesita saber palabras suficiente to tener un conversación.
• Gramática
  Necesita poder hacer las sentencias correcta.
• Práctica
  Necesita práctica genuina construir competencia in la idioma nueva.  Este práctica incluiria escuchando, hablando, leyendo, y escribiendo.

Se puede aprender vocabulario y gramática solo con las estrategias de memoria.  Tambien, se puede practica escuchando, leyendo, y escribiendo solo.  Pero no se puede practica conversacion a solo.  Necesito un amigo, un amigo que sabe la idioma nueva.  Es muy bueno si un amigo sabe la idioma con mas competencia como ti.  Es muy bueno tambien si un amigo tiene los interéses común con ti.

¿Dondé buscaria para este amigo? 

¿En la familia y los amigos?
¿En internet, posible ‘facebook’ or notesinspanish.com?
¿En el grupo (club) de española?
¿En la programa de computadora?  ¡Me gustaria hacer este programa!”

OK, so my written Spanish is pretty sad.  But the gist of the quote is that you can’t participate in conversations by yourself.  You need a partner… who is at about your level… and it’d be really great if they shared your interests.

But… can a computer be your partner?  Could it be effective in helping you practice conversations? 

Well, I found a program that claims to let you have a conversation with it.  It’s for the One Laptop Per Child XO laptop and it’s called Hablar Con Sara.  Click here to get more information on the activity (OLPC for program).  Essentially, you hold a Spanish conversation with the program.  You type in a sentence, the program responds with audio using TTS (Text To Speech).  Can I use it to help me learn Spanish?  Not really.  But, from what I’ve learned playing with Hablar Con Sara I think that I can describe a program that could be used to effectively practice conversations in a new language.

Program elements:

• Interface
  Like Hablar Con Sara, I believe an interface where the user types and the computer responds with audio can be very effective.  However, the program should encourage the user to speak his sentence and the interface should also include a repeat button (to have the computer repeat the previous spoken phrase).  Spanish subtitles of the spoken phrases could also improve usability.
• Context
  Hablar Con Sara has no apparent context for your conversation.  This is pretty open-ended for language learners.  I suggest building a program with several context-based situations.  For example, a context might be something like going to lunch at a restaurant, going to a theater, or asking for directions on the street.
• Limited Vocabulary
  Along with a context that focuses the conversation into a concrete, and usable, situation that the student might encounter, one could limit the vocabulary that the program uses and provide a vocabulary list as a learning aid for the student.
• Better TTS
  Maybe it’s because there is no context for the conversation… or maybe it’s because I don’t have a big enough vocabulary in Spanish… but I have trouble understanding what the computer is saying.  Although I can adjust the pitch and rate of the TTS voice, I still find it hard to understand.  A better TTS engine (or, if possible, recordings - assuming a very limited vocabulary - might be more understandable).
• More Platform Support
  AFAIK, Hablar Con Sara only runs on the XO laptop.  It would be nice if the program ran on PCs, Macs, and other Linux platforms, too.

 Problems with the proposed program:

• Difficulty
  How hard will it be to construct a reasonable context (pictures, …)?
  How hard will it be to construct a conversation engine (that looks for trigger words in the learner’s  input and builds responses)?
• Constructivism / Constructionism it ain’t!
  Use of the program in language learning could not be considered constructivist / constructionist learning.  One solution to this problem would be to create some sort of toolbox that allows students to create their own context-based conversations with pictures, trigger words, …

Strengths of the program:

• The major strength of the program is that it can empower a student to take more control of her learning.

Does anybody see any merit in this type of program?  Does this type of program already exist and is used in language learning (and I’m just in the dark about it)?  Any comments?

Plan: I’ll try to put together a simple prototype in the next week or 2.  Anybody interested in seeing it?

Is it possible to take a teacher-centered educational technology and evolve it in such a way that it becomes more student-centered?  Can it be evolved to the point that it becomes more natural to teach with it using student-centered methods than in conventional teacher-centered methods?

I’m thinking here of the language lab - specifically the audio only learning / language lab such as that manufactured by Educational Media here in Oklahoma City.  Such a lab has many uses in classroom settings, but is most often used in foreign language instruction.  The biggest advantage of the lab (in my opinion) is that students get more practice speaking the language.  The technology, however, is completely teacher-centered; teaching with the language lab appears to me more like what Alfie Kohn would call “doing to” the students. 

This is of particular interest to me.  My main interests are education and technology - and I’m really interested in student-centered, constructivist teaching methods.  As a consultant, I built the user interface and lab control program for the Educational Media lab back in 2002 / 2003.  So far, this has been my only foray into a ”real” educational product - and I am still excited about the product.  The program is very usable and we’ve been updating things over the years… but Ed Media might be about ready to think about a new user interface.  And I might be about ready to consider building one - but I would be much more interested if there were a way to design the program such that teachers would be inclined to evolve their classroom methodologies into a more student-centered experience.  (And face it, if the proposed design were truly revolutionary, Ed Media would be more likely to want it.)

So the question to consider is:

How can the user interface / control system of an audio based language lab be redesigned to motivate the teacher using it to evolve their teaching practices toward student-centered learning activities?

A more basic question might be:

Can a software program controlling a language lab have an impact on the underlying pedagogies used to teach a class using the lab?

I would love to blog here about how this can be done… but, at this point, I don’t really know!  Instead, I’ll put down some thought leaders and blog further about this at a later time.

Some thoughts about student-centered learning:

• Contructivism - students must actively build knowledge by interacting with their environment (hopefully, a carefully crafted learning environment) and other people.
  • What kinds of constuctivist activities are encouraged by the language lab?
  • How can the language lab be used to create an environment conducive to constructivist learning?
  • How can the communication afforded by the language lab be targeted to constructivist methods?
• Project Based Learning is student centered. 
  • Intrinsic motivation is increased as students are empowered to make more choices about their project.
  • What kinds of projects do the capabilities of the language lab support?
• Contructionism - constructivist learning is enhanced when students generate artifacts in the process of building knowledge that they are then able to reflect on and share with others.
  • What kinds of artifacts are supported by the language lab?
  • Could other kinds of artifacts be supported?
• Community - A community of learners working together can improve both the learning and the affective aspects of the classroom.  Of course, we need to have defined working together as collaboration (like the world in general) and not cheating (the world of school).

Sorry I don’t have links or attributions for these statements… I’m just pulling them from memory.

Some thoughts about the language lab:

• The current language lab offers group communication capability that would be useful in group based projects.
• The current language lab offers the ability to make recordings - which could be one form of artifact in Contructionist learning.  The current lab offers no other form of media artifact.
• The current language lab provides little control / choices to students.
• What kinds of changes would be needed to provide more choices for the student?
  • Adding some sort of clicker (Student Response) system to the lab might provide for more kinds of student interactivity - but I certainly don’t think that this could be classified as constructivist.
• What additional capabilities / technologies could be added cost-effectively?
• Any changes should also make the lab more desirable to schools and improve profitability.

 If any readers have any ideas  or comments (assuming there are any readers), I’d sure love to hear them!

I noted in a previous post that I was starting to read John Dewey’s “Democracy and Education”. 

Why read Dewey?  Mainly because of the dissonance associated with my sparse knowledge of him.  I seem to remember Dewey first as the father of American progressive education.  But a few years ago, he made it into one of my daughter’s History books (fairly large Christian School, I don’t remember the publisher) as the (I’m paraphrasing here) man responsible for the destruction of the American public school system.  I don’t remember the book describing how he had accomplished this feat.  But I did decide I wanted to see for myself.

Right off the bat, his views on control in education resonated with me.  However, I got a pretty big shock in Chapture 3.  I’ve always thought of constructivism as relatively new.  But Dewey pens the following paragraph in Chapter 3, section 4. 

“Why is it, in spite of the fact that teaching by pouring in, learning by a passive absorption, are universally condemned, that they are still so entrenched in practice? That education is not an affair of “telling” and being told, but an active and constructive process, is a principle almost as generally violated in practice as conceded in theory.”

If this doesn’t describe Constructivism, then I don’t know what I’d call it! 

If I understand Dewey’s quote here:

• Constructivist theory was accepted in 1916 (when “Democracy and Education was published).
• The schools had not implemented such into normal practice.

 Seems to me that schools haven’t changed much much in this regard in the last 92 years!

Dewey’s explanation as to why this is the case follows the paragraph quoted above.  It’s worth considering… maybe for a later post.

I’ve been investigating the use of Scratch as a constructive environment for students to demonstrate their understanding of various concepts in the classroom.  In this post I’ll be making a bit of a stretch… Can students use Scratch in a constructive way to help them learn a foreign language?

So what do you do in a foreign language class?  It’s been a lot of years for me… but if I remember correctly;

• learn vocabulary and conjugation
• practice listening, speaking, reading, and writing in the language to be learned

It appears to me that one of the deficiencies in learning a foreign language in the classroom is a lack of context - a real-world situation in which to use and practice the language being learned.  I began wondering if students could use Scratch to construct simple contexts for practicing listening and reading a foreign language.  To investigate this question, I constructed a simple Scratch program to provide a context for listening and reading in a foreign language.

The assignment would be something like…

• Create a Scratch project that creates a context for the use of this week’s vocabulary words.  Use the words in phrases that make sense within the context.  Phrases should be both visible and oral.
• This could be done individually, but I think it might be more appropriate to do the exercise in small groups of 3 or 4 students.
• Students could use all the projects to practice their vocabulary words - hopefully in a realistic context (as opposed to flashcards).

The stage of the project is shown to the right.  Once the program is running (by clicking the green flag above the stage in the web browser), the student simply clicks the “Say Something!” button.  A text box appears and the student hears the short phrase in Spanish.

The student(s) creating the project get the opportunity to use the vocabulary words in a real-world context, in contextually correct phrases, and pronunciation.

Students viewing the different projects get to see and hear the vocabulary words used in a number of (hopefully) disparate contexts.

Run the project by clicking here.  The project file is available here.

This is a very simple project.  I believe a 4th or 5th grader (9 or 10 years old) familiar with Scratch could easily create such a project.

Could a constructive use of Scratch in building such projects in the context of a foreign language classroom improve student learning?  Would students be engaged by such activities?  Could such projects allow the teacher to better diagnose student learning problems?  What would be the roadblocks to such projects in the foreign language classroom?

 P.S. My 15 year old daughter in Spanish 2 has informed me that my translations and pronunciation are pretty bad.  She was particulary amused with the question about coming to play on top of my house.  “Real” students should be able to do much better!