Nongraded Schools
In nongraded or multi-age schools, students move through the curriculum at their own pace. When they can demonstrate learning at a certain level in a specific subject area, they move on to the next level. This means students may be learning some subjects with students their own age, and other subjects with older or younger students.
This is not a completely new idea; many school systems have practiced advancing or holding back students based on merit, or offering special placement classes for gifted students and students with learning disabilities. What is different about this model is that it is applied universally, rather than to exceptional students - every student would be moving forward at their own pace - and that it applies to individual subjects, not to every part of a student's school year. From a pedagogical perspective, this model is very exciting. It is essentially differentiation pushed to the nth degree: each student has an individual learning pathway, down which they proceed at a rate and in a direction based on their learning progress. This is in stark contrast with traditional classrooms, where there are always some students who are disengaged because they can't keep up with the class, and others who are bored because it's too easy. |
I see two objections to nongraded schools: managerial, and social.
The management of a class or school following this model would be a significant load on teachers. Teachers would need large amounts of time to evaluate students individually in order to gauge progress. A detailed system would need to be in place to track progress. Ideally, classes would be smaller to accommodate this, which increases overall costs. Currently, elementary schools in Ontario practice social promotion: students move together onto the next grade level, regardless of the effectiveness of their learning in the previous year. While this seems to remove an extrinsic motivator for some students, it is seen as socially beneficial to students, some of whom would otherwise be learning with classmates younger or older than themselves. One difficulty with nongraded schools is the social issues facing a student who has fallen behind his/her peers, or who joins a class with older students. While I hold out little hope for systemic implementation of nongraded education, the principle behind it - that students are individuals who construct knowledge in their own way and at their own pace - is one that I would like to see applied more in schools in the future. |
Flipped Classroom
This model taps into students' online access to information outside of the classroom. Students are assigned videos to watch online at home in preparation for classes at school. The videos replace direct instruction from the teacher. Class time is spent applying the knowledge from the video. Teachers are able to spend more time with students in small groups or 1-1, and can differentiate tasks based on students' grasp of the material. Teachers have reports increased engagement and improved learning as a result of 'flipping the classroom'.
This model appeals for several reasons. First, in my experience, traditional homework seems to be fighting a losing battle: students don't do it, and parents don't support it. Replacing practice of material already covered in class with preparation for upcoming classes seems to be more effective use of time. I think my students would be much more likely to watch a video for tomorrow's class, especially if they understand that they will be using information from the video the following day. Second, it is a better use of the teacher's time in class, as it allows him/her to work closely with students on specific, individual learning needs, rather than addressing the class as a whole. Third, it is a better use of the students' time in class, as they are able to engage in hands-on, active, collaborative learning, rather than passively listening to the teacher deliver information.
However, there are some concerns. Foremost is the assumption that every student has equitable access to technology. While many students are surrounded by connectivity, some are not, including students in rural and remote areas and students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Furthermore, students with language barriers who are unable to follow rapid verbal instruction will be disadvantaged. Second, the pedagogy implied by this model is not student-centered. While class time may involve more active learning, the assumption that knowledge can simply be delivered by a sharp video presentation offends my social constructivist sensibilities. In the right hands, this model could become part of a larger pedagogical scheme, one in which students shape their own learning as they seek to solve open-ended problems based on the context provided by the video - in other words, inquiry-based learning or problem-based learning. However, it would be all too easy for a flipped classroom to still be teacher-centered, rather than student-centered.
Still, I would like to try this in the future. The selling point for me is the possibility for differentiation that this model offers, as the teacher has more time in class to work directly with students. I would also like to do less whole-class instruction, which seems from my experience to be a minimally engaging learning experience for my students.
This model appeals for several reasons. First, in my experience, traditional homework seems to be fighting a losing battle: students don't do it, and parents don't support it. Replacing practice of material already covered in class with preparation for upcoming classes seems to be more effective use of time. I think my students would be much more likely to watch a video for tomorrow's class, especially if they understand that they will be using information from the video the following day. Second, it is a better use of the teacher's time in class, as it allows him/her to work closely with students on specific, individual learning needs, rather than addressing the class as a whole. Third, it is a better use of the students' time in class, as they are able to engage in hands-on, active, collaborative learning, rather than passively listening to the teacher deliver information.
However, there are some concerns. Foremost is the assumption that every student has equitable access to technology. While many students are surrounded by connectivity, some are not, including students in rural and remote areas and students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Furthermore, students with language barriers who are unable to follow rapid verbal instruction will be disadvantaged. Second, the pedagogy implied by this model is not student-centered. While class time may involve more active learning, the assumption that knowledge can simply be delivered by a sharp video presentation offends my social constructivist sensibilities. In the right hands, this model could become part of a larger pedagogical scheme, one in which students shape their own learning as they seek to solve open-ended problems based on the context provided by the video - in other words, inquiry-based learning or problem-based learning. However, it would be all too easy for a flipped classroom to still be teacher-centered, rather than student-centered.
Still, I would like to try this in the future. The selling point for me is the possibility for differentiation that this model offers, as the teacher has more time in class to work directly with students. I would also like to do less whole-class instruction, which seems from my experience to be a minimally engaging learning experience for my students.
MOOCs
Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs) are free or low-cost online programs of study offered by universities around the world. MOOCs were originally intended to be interactive; one pedagogical idea behind this model is that new knowledge is generated from the interactions of participants. Some MOOCs continue to hold to this principle, but others are more akin to more traditional models of education. Some simply replace face-to-face lectures with videos of lectures; others are asynchronous, and are effectively digital versions of traditional distance education courses.
Completion of a MOOC does not earn any credit towards university or college courses, although some providers are considering how to bridge this gap. MOOCs cover a wide array of subjects, from technical skills to arts appreciation and more. The appeal of this model of education is that it offers learning from experts in their respective fields, for little or no cost, and can be accessed anywhere, and almost anytime. Two clear questions arise when considering MOOCs: for the learner, what is the motivation, and for the provider, what is the incentive? I can think of several reasons for taking a MOOC: 1) to master skills needed for employment, in either a current or a future job; 2) to prepare for higher education; 3) simply to learn something that interests the student, as a hobby, or out of somewhat idle curiosity. Motivation for many MOOCs participants must be largely internal: it is up to the student to complete assigned readings and tasks, with little or no motivation other than the intrinsic reward of learning. Certainly motivation is a challenge for providers of MOOCs: according to Wikipedia, on average, less than 10% of registrants complete a MOOC. |
Universities and other providers of online education are looking for a successful business model; in short, how can you make money when you are giving away your product for free? Some providers are self-promoting (for example, assigning a textbook authored by the provider of the course); others ask for a nominal fee. Other models being considered include offering proctored exams for a fee, with the incentive of credit towards related higher education courses for successful candidates.
I wonder at the gap between expectations and outcomes, such as is illustrated by massive dropout rates; Wikipedia gives an example of over 10,000 registrants signing up for one course, but less than 400 completing it. What impact will this have on the 'dropouts' and their future willingness to attempt formal learning? I also question the long-term sustainability of this model: what ethical incentive is there for teachers to offer courses for free? My main concern, however, relates to pedagogy: this seems to be a move away from rather than towards student-centered learning. How can a class of thousands be student-centered? Yes, participants are selecting their own learning pathways based upon their own interests or motivations. Within each course, however, there is a finite limit to how much time the instructor has available to be a 'guide on the side', and anecdotal evidence suggests many use traditional 'sage on the stage' methods. The MOOC model has been heralded as a game-changer, threatening to change the way education is provided at the post-secondary level. I feel this is unlikely in the near future, and unwanted in the long term. |
BYOD (Bring Your Own Device)
The basic premise behind BYOD is that students already own powerful pieces of technology: smart phones. Given that schools face financial barriers to providing 1:1 access to technology, why not utilize the growing capabilities and universality of mobile devices?
This is in direct contrast to the prohibitive attitude of many administrators towards students using or even having their own devices in the classroom. Initial reactions to BYOD include fears that students will be distracted from learning, even using devices to bully other students or cheat on tests, and that it promotes inequity, given the high cost of many devices.
Chris Dede, Professor in Learning Technologies at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, argues that mobile devices can help students connect with the world around them, using locator services and particular apps to interact with the real world digitally. They can provide access not just to information, but to a vast array of 'educators', a term he uses to include all sources of teaching. Learning can be differentiated to match students' learning styles, levels and interests (Dede, 2012).
As discussed earlier, my primary challenge relating to technology is simply getting access to technology in the classroom. While there is a lot of talk about the way technology is transforming education, many schools simply don't have the hardware required to make an impact on how students learn. This is changing, slowly, but for now it remains a major obstacle.
For this reason, I have been a vocal proponent of BYOD in my own school and in Masters courses. It seems like a win-win situation: students get access to technology, and schools don't have to pay for it. This appears to have the potential to transform education overnight into the kind of interactive, situated, engaging learning it could be.
My school implemented a BYOD policy for Intermediate students 12 months ago. Every Grade 7 and 8 student successfully passed a Digital Citizenship course, which included instruction on netiquette, online safety and responsibility, research skills, and legal issues (including copyright). Students are now free to bring digital devices to school, and are allowed to use them at the direction of or with permission from the teacher. Has it transformed education? Is BYOD living up to expectations?
So far, not really. Despite grand visions of students engaging in research, creativity and collaboration, the primary way students use their own devices in the classroom is listening to music while working silently, using headphones. The next most common use is playing educational games when classwork is completed. They have also been used as calculators in math classes.
There have been some isolated projects that have used mobile devices, although they have tended to be the class set of iPods owned by the school. These projects have focused on the recording capabilities of the devices to make movies related to course content: video presentations of research, or videos of students recommending novels. Students have found these projects engaging; in my experience, the quality of student work on the iPods has been slightly higher than using traditional presentation forms.
There still needs to be a lot of work done, however, to truly utilize the full potential of BYOD. Teachers - including myself - need to consider how to integrate this technology in ways that promote meaningful learning. We also need to examine what new ways of teaching and learning are afforded by this technology, rather than simply using it to reinforce existing models.
There are several significant issues that still need to be addressed regarding BYOD. I feel the primary issue is equity: despite assumptions that every teenager in Canada is constantly connected, not every student owns a cell phone. Schools will need to provide students with devices to use in class if devices are to become essential learning tools. Second, different operating systems (e.g., iPhone, Android) have different capabilities and different apps. Finally, there are ongoing concerns about appropriate and safe use of devices in schools.
This is in direct contrast to the prohibitive attitude of many administrators towards students using or even having their own devices in the classroom. Initial reactions to BYOD include fears that students will be distracted from learning, even using devices to bully other students or cheat on tests, and that it promotes inequity, given the high cost of many devices.
Chris Dede, Professor in Learning Technologies at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, argues that mobile devices can help students connect with the world around them, using locator services and particular apps to interact with the real world digitally. They can provide access not just to information, but to a vast array of 'educators', a term he uses to include all sources of teaching. Learning can be differentiated to match students' learning styles, levels and interests (Dede, 2012).
As discussed earlier, my primary challenge relating to technology is simply getting access to technology in the classroom. While there is a lot of talk about the way technology is transforming education, many schools simply don't have the hardware required to make an impact on how students learn. This is changing, slowly, but for now it remains a major obstacle.
For this reason, I have been a vocal proponent of BYOD in my own school and in Masters courses. It seems like a win-win situation: students get access to technology, and schools don't have to pay for it. This appears to have the potential to transform education overnight into the kind of interactive, situated, engaging learning it could be.
My school implemented a BYOD policy for Intermediate students 12 months ago. Every Grade 7 and 8 student successfully passed a Digital Citizenship course, which included instruction on netiquette, online safety and responsibility, research skills, and legal issues (including copyright). Students are now free to bring digital devices to school, and are allowed to use them at the direction of or with permission from the teacher. Has it transformed education? Is BYOD living up to expectations?
So far, not really. Despite grand visions of students engaging in research, creativity and collaboration, the primary way students use their own devices in the classroom is listening to music while working silently, using headphones. The next most common use is playing educational games when classwork is completed. They have also been used as calculators in math classes.
There have been some isolated projects that have used mobile devices, although they have tended to be the class set of iPods owned by the school. These projects have focused on the recording capabilities of the devices to make movies related to course content: video presentations of research, or videos of students recommending novels. Students have found these projects engaging; in my experience, the quality of student work on the iPods has been slightly higher than using traditional presentation forms.
There still needs to be a lot of work done, however, to truly utilize the full potential of BYOD. Teachers - including myself - need to consider how to integrate this technology in ways that promote meaningful learning. We also need to examine what new ways of teaching and learning are afforded by this technology, rather than simply using it to reinforce existing models.
There are several significant issues that still need to be addressed regarding BYOD. I feel the primary issue is equity: despite assumptions that every teenager in Canada is constantly connected, not every student owns a cell phone. Schools will need to provide students with devices to use in class if devices are to become essential learning tools. Second, different operating systems (e.g., iPhone, Android) have different capabilities and different apps. Finally, there are ongoing concerns about appropriate and safe use of devices in schools.