Belief Mode versus Design Mode

Carl Bereiter and Marlene Scardamalia describe differences in the use of knowledge in schools versus the business or working world.  They define two types of modes for knowledge use: belief mode and design mode.  They highlight the difference in use here:

When in belief mode, we are concerned with what we and other people believe or
ought to believe. Our response to ideas in this mode is to agree or disagree, to present
arguments and evidence for or against, to express and try to resolve doubts. When in
design mode, we are concerned with the usefulness, adequacy, improvability, and
developmental potential of ideas. Switching back and forth between modes is
common. (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2003)

 Bereiter & Scardamalia believe that good quality educational systems tend to operate and teach students to think in the belief mode only.  Students learn to use evidence, gather data, resist progaganda, and can adequately evaluate claims.  Bereiter & Scardamalia also believe that inadequate educational systems also teach students to operate in belief mode, but their inadequate teaching of this results in unquestioning students who don't really rely on evidence based claims to make judgements of truth. Their contention is that all traditional educational systems operate in belief mode in the realm of ideas.

When ideas are presented for consideration, they
are almost always presented in belief mode. The focus is on whether the idea is true or
warranted. If experiments are conducted, their purpose is to validate, to provide an
empirical basis for accepting the idea. Questions that would be asked in design
mode—questions that would be asked in a real-world knowledge-based organization—
are questions like the following:
What is this idea good for?
What does it do and fail to do?
How could it be improved?.....

Somehow, if the schools are to enculturate students into the
Knowledge Age, they must introduce this dynamic of continual idea improvement.

Bereiter & Scardamalia ennumerate four design-mode approaches in science education:  Learning by Design, as developed at Georgia Tech; Project-Based Science, as developed at the University of Michigan; Problem-Based Learning, as developed at Southern Illinois University; and Knowledge Building, as developed at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto.

In Learning by Design, as described by Holbrook and Kolodner (2000, p. ),
Science learning is achieved through addressing a major design challenge (such
as building a self-powered car that can go a certain distance over a certain
terrain).... To address a challenge, class members develop designs, build
prototypes, gather performance data and use other resources to provide
Knowledge - justification for refining their designs, and they iteratively investigate, redesign, test, and analyze the results of their ideas. They articulate their understanding of science concepts, first in terms of the concrete artifact which they have designed,
then in transfer to similar artifacts or situations, and finally to abstract principles
of science.

As defined by Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik, & Soloway (1997, p. 341),
Project-based science focuses on student-designed inquiry that is organized by
investigations to answer driving questions, includes collaboration among
learners and others, the use of new technology, and the creation of authentic
artifacts that represent student understanding.

As typically employed in medical schools, problem-based work is run according to a
tight schedule and fixed procedures, with only limited opportunity for iterative idea
improvement; but these are not essential features of the approach and are not
mentioned among the minimum requirements for Problem-Based Learning at the
Problem-Based Learning Initiative’s website
(http://www.pbli.org/pbl/generic_pbl.htm). Unlike Project-Based Science, ProblemKnowledge - Based Learning is not focused on a tangible end product. The end product is a problem solution—a purely conceptual artifact. Thus iterative idea improvement is, at least in principle, something that Problem-Based Learning could promote.

“Knowledge Building” may be defined simply as “creative work with ideas that
really matter to the people doing the work” (Scardamalia & Bereiter, in press). It is not
confined to education but applies to creative knowledge work of all kinds. Whether
they are scientists working on an explanation of cell aging or first-graders working on
an explanation of leaves changing color in the fall, knowledge builders engage in similar
processes with a similar goal. That goal is to advance the frontiers of knowledge as they
perceive them.

 Knowledge building is a constructivist approach; some of the most salient examples:

• A focus on idea improvement.
• Problems versus questions.
• Knowledge of value to the community.
• Emergent goals and products.
• Constructive use of authoritative sources.

A comprehensive knowledge building environment would provide a means of initiating students into a knowledge-creating culture—to make them feel a part of
humankind’s long-term effort to understand their world and gain some control over
their destiny. Knowledge would not be seen as something handed down to them from
dead White males. Rather, they would look on those dead White males—and other
intellectual forbears of different race and gender—as fellow workers whose work they
are carrying forward. The Knowledge Society, as it is taking shape today, seems headed
toward a very sharp separation between those who are in it and those who, whether
they live a continent apart or on the same street, are on the outside looking in. A
knowledge building environment should provide all students an opportunity to be on
the inside looking out.

References
•Draft of chapter to appear in E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van
Merriënboer (Eds.), Unravelling basic components and dimensions of powerful learning
environments. EARLI Advances in Learning and Instruction Series.
Revised: 16 February, 2003,
Learning to Work Creatively With Knowledge
Carl Bereiter and Marlene Scardamalia
OISE/University of Toronto
•Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Learning by Design™: Interations of design challenges for better
learning of science skills. Cognitive Studies, 9(3), 338-350.
•Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting projectbased
science. Elementary School Journal, 97, 341-358.

Andragogy

Malcolm Knowles is recognized as the "father of adult education" and "andragogy".  Andragogy is an “integrated framework of adult learning” (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 1998, p.58).  Pedagogy specifically refers to the art and science of teaching children. (Greek)  Andragogy is based
on the Greek word aner (with the stem andr-), meaning “man”.  Andragogy is the art and science of teaching and helping adults to learn. 

According to Knowles, Holton, and Swanson (1998), the six principles of andragogy are:
1. The learner’s need to know
2. Self-concept of the learner
3. Prior experience of the learner
4. Readiness to learn
5. Orientation to learning
6. Motivation to learn.

Adult experiences can provide a wider range of individual differences in learners, which are often the basis of the adult's self concept.  Knowles (1969)  believed adults preferred problem-solving versus subject oriented learning. 

Barriers to adult learning include accessibility, affordability, and accountability.  Knowles believed the core principles listed above were integral to designing effective educational programs for adults, taking into account the uniqueness of each situation.

References
Knowles, M.S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The adult learner: The definitive classic
in adult education and human resource development (5th ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf.
Knowles, M. S. (1962). The adult education movement in the United States. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston Inc.
Knowles, M.S. (1969). Higher education in the United States: The current picture, trends, and
issues. Washington D.C.: American Council on Education.
Knowles, M.S. (1970). The modern practice of adult education; Andragogy versus pedagogy.
New York: Association Press.
Knox, A. B. (1993). Strengthening adult and continuing education: A global perspective on
synergistic leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

References: Research Papers on Microworlds

(also posted in my DNLE class)

Instead of citing all of the literature, I’m supplying a list of references to papers written on different microworlds.

References

•Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(2), 43-58

• Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: BasicBooks.

•Galas, C., and Freudenberg, R., "Learning with Etoys", presented at Constructionism 2010 conference, Paris, France, August 2010.

•Galas, C., "Classroom Squeaking", Squeak News, Volume 1, Issue  4, October 2001. Squeakland Japan, Squeakland US, PDF

•Galas, C., "Changing the Classroom Paradigm", Learning and Leading with Technology, ISTE, April 1999. PDF

•Galas, C., "The Never Ending Story, Questioning Strategies for the Information Age", Learning and Leading with Technology, ISTE, April 1999. ISTE, PDF

•Galas, C., Rosenthal, L., Weishaupt, L., "Project Based Learning in the Elementary Classroom", Connections, Bridging Research and Practice, Urban Education Studies, UCLA, Fall 1999. PDF

•Galas, C., "From Presentation to Programming: Doing Something Different, Not the Same Thing Differently", Learning and Leading with Technology, ISTE, December/January 1997-98. PDF

•Galas, C., "From Presentation to Programming: Doing Something Different, Not the Same Thing Differently", Online Supplement, Learning and Leading with Technology, ISTE, December/January 1997-98. Microworlds, PDF

•Weishaupt, L., "Cyberspace Learning--Bringing it Down to Earth", UES Bridge, Vol.2, Issue 7, Spring 1997. HTML.

•Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking and Learning in a Digital World-96 edition, edited by Kafai, Y., and M. Resnick.

• Kafai, Y. B., Franke, M., Ching, C., & Shih, J. (1998). Game design as an interactive learning environment fostering students’ and teachers’ mathematical inquiry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3(2), 149–184. PDF.

• Kafai, Y. B., & Ching, C. C. (2001). Affordances of collaborative software design planning for elementary students’ science talk. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(3), 323–363. PDF.

•Ching, C. C., Kafai, Y. B., & Marshall, S. (2000). Spaces for change: Gender and technology access in collaborative software design. Journal for Science Education and Technology, 9(1), 67-78. PDF.

• Resnick, M., and Ocko, S. (1991). LEGO/Logo: Learning Through and About Design. In Constructionism, edited by I. Harel & S. Papert. Ablex Publishing.

• Resnick, M. (1991). MultiLogo: A Study of Children and Concurrent Programming. Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 153-170.

• Resnick, M., and Silverman, B. (1996). Exploring Emergence. An "active essay" on the Web.

*Resnick, M. (1995). New Paradigms for Computing, New Paradigms for Thinking. Computers and Exploratory Learning, A. diSessa, C. Hoyles, & R. Noss (eds.), pp. 31-43. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

*Bruckman, A., and Resnick, M. (1995). The MediaMOO Project: Constructionism and Professional Community. Convergence, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 94-109.

*Resnick, M., Martin, F., Sargent, R., and Silverman, B. (1996). Programmable Bricks: Toys to Think With. IBM Systems Journal, vol. 35, no. 3-4, pp. 443-452.

*Resnick, M., and Wilensky, U. (1997). Diving into Complexity: Developing Probabilistic Decentralized Thinking through Role-Playing Activities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 153-172.

Resnick, M. (2002). Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age. In The Global Information Technology Report: Readiness for the Networked World, edited by G. Kirkman. Oxford University Press.

Resnick, M., and Silverman, B. (2005). Some Reflections on Designing Construction Kits for Kids. Proceedings of Interaction Design and Children conference, Boulder, CO.

Resnick, M. (2007). Learning from Scratch, Microsoft Faculty Connection, June 2007.

Resnick, M. (2007). All I Really Need to Know (About Creative Thinking) I Learned (By Studying How Children Learn) in Kindergarten. ACM Creativity & Cognition conference, Washington DC, June 2007.

Maloney, J., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by Choice: Urban Youth Learning Programming with Scratch. SIGCSE conference, Portland, March 2008.

Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The Scratch Programming Language and Environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), vol. 10, no. 4 (November 2010).

Resnick, M. (2012). Reviving Papert's Dream. Educational Technology, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 42-46.

Microworlds

(Also posted in my DNLE class)

About Microworlds

The idea of a computer-based microworld is the constructivist design model of Seymour Papert. The computer-based microworld exists as a sandbox simplest case beginning.  The child needs no introduction or training to begin to use it; it is simplest case and it matches the user.  Microworld designers are assumed to be self-regulated learners who can monitor and regulate their own learning.   

Papert, a constructivist and constructionist computer pioneer greatly influenced by the work of Jean Piaget, developed the LOGO programming language at MIT.  LOGO is the first case of computer Microworlds. Yasmin Kafai, Mitchell Resnick, Idit Harel Caperton and Uri Wilensky were all students of Papert’s who have continued research on microworlds. 

There are many different microworlds that offer the affordances of simplest case and matching the user’s ability.  My experience is with LOGO, Squeak Etoys, and Scratch.  LOGO was first created in 1967 for constructivist teaching, and the first turtle robot was created in 1969.   The turtle is an on screen cursor that the user uses to program using turtle geometry.  Similar to x,y in Cartesian geometry, the turtle uses the x,y coordinates relative to its own position.  Wikipedia reports that as of March 2009, there were 197 different implementations of LOGO. [1]

Squeak Etoys was designed by Alan Kay and built by Dan Ingalls in 1996.  Etoys design was inspired by Alan Kay’s interest in constructionism and Papert’s work with LOGO.  Etoys is a media-rich authoring environment, which includes turtle geometry, 2D and 3D graphics, images, text, particles, presentation, sound and MIDI, and the ability to share in real-time over the internet. [2] Squeak Etoys was inspired by Papert’s philosophy and LOGO work.  Alan’s vision was that Etoys had no ceiling, in other words, children could continue to explore programming at deeper levels and interface with the powerful Squeak languageSqueak Etoys has been pre-installed on the  OLPC XO-1 computer since 2006, and continues to be used around the world in formal and informal education.  Here, Etoys intersects with another learning technology to improve learning.  This post is not about that, but you can read more about OLPC at:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Laptop_per_Child.

I was fortunate to have met Alan Kay and help his group pilot Squeak Etoys in school classrooms.  I was invited to Alan’s yearly or semi-yearly “Learning Labs”, held at a music camp in New Hampshire every year before the traditional school year began, or at a university in March or April.  At this wonderful Learning Lab, many exciting people were invited, including programmers, education leaders, musicians, and artists.  Mitch Resnick from MIT was always there, and brought many of his students each year.   I don’t have the space to write how wonderful my collaboration and relationship has been with Alan.  Instead, I’ll give you Mitch Resnick, former Papert student, developer of StarLogo and Scratch and head of the Lifelong Kindergarten in the Media Lab at MIT.  Here is what Mitch says about the Learning Labs: http://www.thedailyriff.com/articles/life-as-a-learning-lab-449.php.

John Maloney, who had been with the original Squeak and Etoys development team, went to work at MIT with Mitch to develop the new iteration of Scratch.  [3]  Scratch was initially targeted at after-school clubhouses all over the world.  I also worked briefly with some of the students from the LA clubhouse, hosting them to visit UCLA and working with some of their UCLA grad student mentors.  The Scratch website was launched in 2007, and is an example of a learner-centered, vibrant community that also includes an educator community. 

Scratch was built to be a beginner-intermediate programming microworld, so it didn't access more powerful programming tools.  Many years ago at a Squeakers meeting in Potsdam, Jens Moenig was demonstrating his new BYOB, Build your own Blocks which added new tools and procedures to Scratch.  Jens has since partnered with Brian Harvey at UC Berkeley.  Brian and Jens have continued the work on BYOB, now referred to as SNAP, and Brian uses the advanced Scratch environment to teach beginning programming to accolades at Berkeley. [4]

Mitch wanted Scratch to have a ceiling, so constructing one’s

The concept of powerful ideas is an important one for designing educational environments.  Looking closely at WHAT the expected LEARNING will be is a concept sometimes lost in looking at the glitz of new technologies.  Building on sound pedagogy is imperative.  I think collaboration of different kinds of people on these projects cross-pollinates the ideas in a helpful fashion.  Having educators, researchers, programmers, all working on design and construction of new environments is probably the best formula.  Some of you in this class may be all of the above!

Citations

1.     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_%28programming_language%29

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etoys_%28programming_language%29

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scratch_%28programming_language%29

4. http://byob.berkeley.edu/

Why is Science Education Important?

Technology has changed the way we all work, play, learn, and live.  People use social media such as Facebook to keep in touch with friends and relatives, and make new connections.  Business makes use of technologies to communicate, to work in teams, to create new products and services.  Individuals shop online and make use of technology tools that seamlessly allow them to manage information.  World economies are, or are becoming information based, and moving away from industrial based systems.

We are living in a time where information  (doubles)  find numbers    , and world societies must face  problems of poverty, food shortages, water supplies, climate change, disease and medical issues, and environmental problems.  To respond to these issues, world citizens must be equipped tomake informed decisions on the basis of real information, not just superstition or word of mouth.

Science Education in California 2012

Although California is the home of worldwide technological innovation with Silicon Valley companies like Apple, Intel, and Adobe, the public school system is not investing time, money or teacher training to teach science. 

Needs to change school culture, scheduling time, planning time, using data including student data, designs for professional learning, facilitating collaborative professional learning teams, evaluating learning, both formative and summative assessment, roles of central office administrators, the principal and the coaches for effective learning.  The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at WestEd the Lawrence Hall of Science at UC Berkeley, and SRI International reported that 10% of elementary students received regular hands-on science, and only one third of elementary teachers felt they were prepared to teach science.  85% of these teachers also reported they’ve had no professional development in the last three years.  The report, Untapped Potential, released in March 2012, states that:

The research shows that:

• nearly 40 percent of teachers view students' lack of interest as a major or moderate challenge to science instruction.
• nearly half (47%) of principals report students' lack of preparation as a major or moderate challenge.
• nearly one-quarter of middle school teachers may not have an adequate background or preparation for teaching the subject.
• nearly 60 percent of surveyed teachers identified insufficient professional development as a barrier to high-quality science instruction.
• just 14 percent of middle school teachers provide a pattern of classroom practices that support regular engagement of students in the practices of science.

California is due to implement the new Common Core State Standards in 2014-15.  These were developed by an initiative of the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers.  California is one of the 45 adopting states of these standards representing a significant shift in teaching and learning of science literacy.  A series of focus groups representing six subgroups of teachers, elementary (one group consisted of teachers with more than 10 years of experience, and another consisted of teachers with less than 10 years of experience¹); middle and high school mathematics; middle and high school science; middle and high school history/social studies; and middle and high school English language arts, was commissioned by WestEd's Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning in October 2011.  The key finding reported was that teachers did not feel prepared for the transition.  The Center recommended:

that districts and schools take immediate action on the following:

• Educate teachers about the standards: how they were developed and teachers' role in that process; the goals and structure of the standards; and the expectations for how the standards will influence teachers' practice. Teachers must be assured that the CCSS will replace existing standards and that they will not be required to teach to both sets of standards simultaneously.
• Engage representative teachers in planning how the district will implement the new standards. Educate all teachers about the implementation process, including how it was planned (especially, teacher involvement), the implementation role of the individual teacher, and timelines.
• Create a climate in which it is acceptable for teachers to begin transitioning to the new standards without fear of being punished under current accountability measures. Districts will need to allay teachers' concerns that they may have to prepare students for the California Standards Tests at the same time they begin teaching to the CCSS.
• Provide intensive, ongoing professional development about the differences between current standards and the CCSS regarding content and pedagogy. Districts must explicitly unpack the two sets of standards, illuminating the gap between them and articulating the expectations under the new standards. If there is to be a successful transition to the new standards, teachers must have appropriate materials and resources, whether they are provided by the district or whether, with the district's blessing, they are identified or developed by the teachers themselves.
• Explain how new assessments will be linked to the CCSS standards. There is a great deal of apprehension among teachers about how the changes in standards will be assessed adequately, particularly how critical thinking skills can be assessed in a standardized test. As soon as they are made available, provide transparency about what the tests are going to look like so that teachers can understand how each individual standard is represented in the tests. In addition, once decisions about the accountability system have been made, explain the role of the tests within that system (e.g., the weighting of subject areas, grade levels tested, other factors beyond tests that may be included). (CenterView: Willing but Not Yet Ready: A glimpse of California teachers’ preparedness for the Common Core State Standards
  – Release Date: Feb 22, 2012)

Results on NAEP science tests show California trails the nation in students’ scientific literacy. At the same time, public opinion research finds that Californians strongly support increased time and resources devoted to science education. ªCenterView: Scientific Literacy: The Missing Ingredient
– Release Date: Feb 04, 2011)

Teacher preparation programs will need to help future teachers envision and enact new

strategies to foster deeper learning. (P21Webinar, Developing Transferable Knowledge and skills, 2012)

ATC21S recognizes that assessment is only one piece of the holistic education-transformation approach. To make lasting change, educational systems need to develop new curricula and provide teachers with professional development to teach 21st century skills effectively in an information and communications technology-rich environment.  http://atc21s.org/index.php/about/faqs/

References

•California teachers lack the resources and time to teach science, LA Times, October 31, 2011

•Math and Science Teacher Initiative, CSU
•Teach California
•The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at WestEd

•http://www.cftl.org/index_sci.php

•Untapped Potential: The status of Middle School Science Education in California, March 22, 2012, accessed October 3, 2012 from http://www.cftl.org/Whats__New.htm.

•CenterView: Willing but Not Yet Ready: A glimpse of California teachers’ preparedness for the Common Core State Standards
– Release Date: Feb 22, 2012 accessed October 5, 2012 from http://www.cftl.org/CenterView.htm.

•CenterView: Scientific Literacy: The Missing Ingredient
– Release Date: Feb 04, 2011accessed October 7, 2012 from http://www.cftl.org/CenterView.htm.

• http://atc21s.org/index.php/about/  ATCS21S Research Project

• P21Webinar, Developing Transferable Knowledge and skills, 2012  http://www.youtube.com/user/ptumarkin?feature=watch

•Why is Science Important? Vimeo

Why is Science Important?

Link between science and technology – in a technological world, tech problems requiring tech solutions, citizens of the world need the ability to evaluate and make decisions about possible solutions

Science is establishing the true nature of the world around us. 

In the past tech could happen by trial and error, not today

Technology seems like a good first answer

This approach is too simple—need to stand back and ask do we need more tech, or do we need to address what poorer countries need, see what benefits they bring to the world, can improve the quality of our lives and can contribute to nuclear destruction, tech is an outcome of science

Robing Bell “science is crucial to the long term survival of our species”

Climate change—ice core techs, understand

Recreate the process that keeps the sun shining-nuclear fusion JET, with science you can change the future, make the world better, science against the climate change problem, science uncovered threat to climate change by discovering hole in the ozone layer, it is science that lets us know there is a problem in the first place, we can understand deeply how things work through science

Scientists who discovered that germs caused disease, reason to separate drinking water from sewage, and for building vaccines against disease and antibiotics, science must pervade medicine   Sanger Institute near Cambridge, human genome, peer review to see whether scientists agree or disagree, basic understanding of cancer, science tells us whether a treatment works or not,

Science is not a panacea—0through politics the fruits of science can change our world.  It is vital that politicians understand science, imp for scientists to communicate their work to others, public understanding of science, we live in a scientific age, society must understand the science to make decisions, kids and geeks to understand, really important is the audience that is turned off by science and government, who is deciding the funding for science including stem cell research

People’s understanding and appreciation of science begins in the classroom.  Teachers express concerns about the ways science is treated in the classroom.  Addresses the individual as a consumer rather than a producer of science, science is one of last vestiges that gives capacity to go beyond what is taught, problems occur when curriculum should fill every minute, with accountability thrust upon them, we start to look at children as currency, where we teach science with enthusiasm and rigor, we will get the, what is the best way to deliver science education, let them know why important and how it can enrich their lives   must understand our universe and develop our understanding and grasping the ideas that we can understand our selves—we want to understand—without it we are not fulfilling our potential as human beings,  the basic desire to answer the big questions of the universe for example, astronomy—astronomy puts us in contact with the grand scale of the universe, bring us to our place in the universe-what is our origin, what is our destiny, chemical elements in the universe,  we come from stardust, doesn’t matter what your profession, but to understand where you come from, part of the universe, just knowing about how the world works , science as a way of obtaining knowledge-science is disciplined inquiry- a way that submits to review, open minded, may not arrive at answers, new questions, scientific mindset prepared to live with open endedness

Science teacher wants students to think for themselves, question things, Victorians believed that public access to the knowledge within the natural history museum would make them better people.  A method in which reliable testable knowledge could be arrived at—a remarkable way of thinking-what an amazing accomplishment the body of scientific knowledge is, an ongoing human endeavor, without science, students handicapped to be all they can be, science lets us see superstition, only method to satisfy our curiosity and let us reach for the stars.

References

•Why is Science Important? Vimeo

•California teachers lack the resources and time to teach science, LA Times, October 31, 2011

•Math and Science Teacher Initiative, CSU
•Teach California
•The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at WestEd

•http://www.cftl.org/index_sci.php

Why do we need 21st century skills?

New learning for the most transformative and generative time in history

Traditional first-world education systems are industrial-based and not meeting the needs of students who live and will live and work in an information society.  Our twenty-first century global economy is no longer based on industrial systems, rather, it is a knowledge-based economy.  Reading, writing, mathematics, and science are important, but broad digital literacy, deeper rather than superficial learning, collaboration, problem-solving and research must be built in to prepare students for their future. (http://atc21s.org/index.php/about/)  In this ever-transforming digital world, learning to collaborate and connect though technology are basic skills.  Collaborative problem-solving, critical thinking and decision making skills, learning to work with technology tools and adapt to new tools (information literacy), and understanding and communicating and collaborating effectively with others are hallmarks of skills needed in the twenty-first century.

Transferable learning, which includes content knowledge and procedural knowledge allowing generalizable problem-solving, is the product of deeper learning.  Twenty-first century competencies include both the skills and the knowledge needed to succeed in the global digital world.

Deeper learning cognitive competencies include critical thinking and the ability to construct and appropriately evaluate evidence-based arguments.  Understanding general principles of factual and conceptual knowledge, problem-solving strategies, and ability to apply appropriate procedures, skills and strategies to new situations supports learning transfer.  (P21Webinar, Developing Transferable Knowledge and skills, 2012)

21^st century learning has now become a global movement involved in expanding learning skills to meet student needs in a technological society. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_Century_Skills)

References

• http://atc21s.org/index.php/about/  ATCS21S Research Project

• P21Webinar, Developing Transferable Knowledge and skills, 2012  http://www.youtube.com/user/ptumarkin?feature=watch

Cohere, Evidence Hub, Ed Futures EvHub Links

Cohere plus rhetorical annotation
http://technologies.kmi.open.ac.uk/cohere/2012/01/09/cohere-plus-automated-rhetorical-annotation

Evidence Hub
http://evidence-hub.net

Evidence Hub for Open Education
http://ci.olnet.org

Evidence Hub for research by children and young people
http://rcyp.evidence-hub.net/

Evidence Hub for Children and Young People-Key Challenge-important for children to research
http://rcyp.evidence-hub.net/explore.php?id=137108145210781268001337251487

Educational Futures Evidence Hub
http://edfutures.evidence-hub.net/

Evidence Hub for Open Education
http://ci.olnet.org/#org-orggmap

Educational Futures Evidence Hub

The Educational Futures Evidence Hub aims to provide an environment to systematically interrogate the Educational Futures movement on what are the people, projects, organizations, challenges, solutions and claims that scaffold the future of Education. Ultimately this website will build an evidence hub which represents and maps the collective knowledge around the future of Education.

The Evidence Hub is developed by the Knowledge Media Institute team (Simon Buckingham Shum, Anna De Liddo and Michelle Bachler) in partnership with the VITAL project.

 from Buckingham Shum, slideshare, the following:

Ed futures hub system augmented to have the capacity to sense, respond to, and shape it’s environment using the lens of complex adaptive systems, resilience and network science, and through the lens of sensemaking and HCI (hypermedia discourse, social-semantic web and models of discourse)

Augmenting the system through complex systems sense the interacting agents of humans and software, the weak signals that can build up  quickly and unexpectedly, diversity and redundancy, feedback loops, visual analytics that can reveal emergent patterns and network properties,as well as the ability to withstand change and shock to the system itself.

Reslience of a system is defined by Walker, et al. (2004) as:

“the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change, so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks”

resilienceplatforms: http://www.futureofed.org/driver/Platforms-for-Resilience.aspx

Creating flexibility and innovation amid system failures

“Platforms for resilience - enabling responsive flexibility, distributed collaboration, and transparency - will allow institutions to meet such challenges through innovation, adaptation, and openness.”

How do we augment this system’s capacity to sense, respond to, and shape its environment?

• Through the lens of sensemaking and HCI...

• many plausible narratives: what was, is, or might be going on?...

• many representational artifacts being shared and annotated

• attention to the quality of conversation: how well are agents listening to each other and what kinds of contributions do they make?

• informal interaction mixed with stronger public claims

• many connections being made, both formal and fuzzy

• critical thinking

• argumentation

• assumptions

• analogical thinking

• causality

• juxtapositions

• “kinda related...”

Sensemaking: the search for plausible, narrative connections

• In their review of sensemaking, Klein, et al. conclude:

“By sensemaking, modern researchers seem to mean something different from creativity, comprehension, curiosity, mental modeling, explanation, or situational awareness, although all these factors or phenomena can be involved in or related to sensemaking. Sensemaking is a motivated, continuous effort to understand connections (which can be among people, places, and events) in order to anticipate their trajectories and act effectively. […] A frame functions as a hypothesis about the connections among data.”

Contested Collective Intelligence

conversations are critical to sensemaking

there is no master worldview

we need CI infrastructures to pool awareness of

how people are reading small signals, and amplify important connections

Given a wealth of documents—where the tools fit

Where  tools fit… Given a wealth of documents, and tools to detect and render potentially significant patterns…

Where our tools fit: making meaningful connections between information elements…

Where our tools fit: making meaningful connections between interpretations

References

•Simon Buckingham Shum, An Educational Futures Evidence Hub: Dynamic Web Presence for Engaging  Academics, Practitioners, Enterprise & Policymakers?, slideshare, accessed October 3, 2012, http://www.slideshare.net/sbs/educational-futures-evidence-hub.

•Walker,  (2004)

•Klein, G., Moon, B. and Hoffman, R.F. (2006a). Making sense of sensemaking I: alternative perspectives. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 70–73

•Klein, G., Moon, B. and Hoffman, R.F. (2006b). Making sense of sensemaking Ii: a macrocognitive model. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(5), 88–92

•De Liddo, A., Sándor, Á. and Buckingham Shum, S. (2012, In Press). Contested Collective Intelligence: Rationale, Technologies, and a Human-Machine Annotation Study. Computer Supported Cooperative Work.

•