Mobile Phones Wiki Reflections, Hello? Hello? Can you still hear me?

Our course is definitely heavily into constructivism so far - not only personal and individual but collaborative.  That's not to say we're left to sink or swim on our own.  Our learning is scaffolded and, sometimes just in time, sometimes a little late for some, additional support is provided, a life-ring is thrown to us to help us, perhaps to plug a gap in our knowledge or to bridge over from one task to another (please excuse the mixed metaphors).

Our blog reflections were supposed to be scaffolded using a template provided.  I didn't ignore the template in my early reflections, I just didn't know enough to comment on the aspects of connectivism, behaviourism, etc.  I think it is a really useful way to try to ensure learners focus in the direction the course wishes to steer them.  Ok, so even when I know what I'm "supposed" to do, doesn't mean I'm going to do it.  I'm a HOTtie, remember?  Give me enough rope and I'll find the tallest building...


TeachingMadeEasy.com

In the Mobile Phone Wiki task, we were supposed to read some articles to gain different perspectives on the debate of use of mobiles in the classroom.  Many of us have preconceived ideas (that Mezirow suggests we hold on to for grim death (paraphrasing)).  Our supported learning then suggested, rather than using a PMI tool as we did last time, to use De Bono's six thinking hats (very Gestalt), to “organise and share thinking in distinct ways”, to categorise our reflections, synthesise our understandings and produce a conformity of results.  Finally, we were supposed to, yet again, contribute to a collaborative wiki.

As with previous posts, I have concerns over the use of wikis on this course to date.  Aside from the fact that within the Moodle site they are far from smooth, easily negotiated or searched, I'm not sure my fellow learners are embracing them.  The whole idea of a wiki, as opposed to, say, a sole-author blog, is that it is supposed to be collaboratively authored. "A wiki is a collaborative web site whose content can be edited by visitors to the site, allowing users to easily create and edit web pages collaboratively", Parker and Chao, 2007, Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects.

I read through just the first (black) hat of the wiki - the negatives of using mobile phones in the classroom.  There were over 1800 words, too many of which were repeated by the 31 learners who had noted their contributions in the wiki.  Had the idea of a wiki not been explained?  Had the progression straight to higher order thinking left gaps in some learner's knowledge?  Or was it something else? "Self-conscious or shy students are often unwilling to speak in front of their peers" (Burdett, J. 2003, "A Switch to Online Takes Time: Academics' Experiences of ICT Innovation) and "Student reluctance to participate in chat or group discussions stemmed from ideas of being exposed and a lack of anonymity" (ibid). Whilst participants were asked to add their names to those contributing, they were not obliged to label their comments (though most did). 

Can Cell Phones be used as
Instructional Tools in the Classroom

 “Teachers will need practice in organizing and conducting collaborative activities, particularly the facilitative role that is needed. A lot of attention has to be devoted to ways in which student teams can most effectively present and share their results with each other. And both students and teachers will need training and support in the use of all online communication tools”, Greg Kearsley & Ben Shneiderman (1998), Engagement Theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning. But this takes time, as Marshall comments “for a site to effectively offer the students the opportunity for collaboration, a great deal of monitoring time is required by staff” – Marshall, Engagement Theory, WebCT, and academic writing in Australia, International Journal of Education and Development using ICT > Vol. 3, No. 2 (2007).

I think it’s perhaps a combination of both – natural reluctance to amend another’s work (as discussed in my previous blog on the Learning Theories Wiki – elements of behaviourism and cognitivism) and a need for more intervention or explanation from the teacher. This experience highlights comments by Mishra & Koehler, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge, 2006: “part of the problem…[is] a tendency to only look at the technology and not how it is used”. We all should know how the technical aspects of the wiki work (to the depth needed to participate in them, rather than, for example, write the code) but we need to learn how to use the technologies to help others learn.


Education Cartoons, Randy Glasbergen

Instead of simply adding my (perhaps overlapping or repetitious) thoughts to the Mobile Phone Wiki, I decided to try to support the learning of my cohorts by making the wiki truly collaborative. I deleted the entire contents of one section of the wiki, consolidated it, combining ideas on the same issues, critiquing it and restructuring and reconstructing it, not to show off my high order thinking, but to illustrate a) the flexibility and true potential of the wiki (and hence the collaborative constructivist exercise) and b) how much more manageable and usable the result (summarised to 500 words, from 1800 words). Only time will tell how they will react (if at all, and if so, how or whether they communicate their reaction). Time only allowed me to reconstruct one of De Bono’s hats, but I invited my cohorts to tackle the other five between them, no matter the diversity in their approaches. Hopefully, the "use of [an] asynchronous discussion may increase the reflection and thoughtfulness in student discussion" (Bunker & Vardi 2001), the wiki enabling participants to act anonymously and in their own time.

So, these comments are an addition to my reflections a few days later, having judged the reaction to my amends to the wiki.  No reaction.  Well, nearly none.  Thank you Debra Tucker for (initialling your contribution and) adding to a summarised comment on security.  So pleased someone gets it.  However, no-one has taken up the challenge to amend and consolidate any of the other hats, so the (let's call it) 'final' wiki is, like the Learning Theories Wiki before it, a repository of repetition and verbosity (talk about the pot calling the kettle black, I hear you cry? ;o) rather than a vault of concise knowledge, opinion and reflections.  Ah well.  But why not?  Why did my fellow learners act the way they did?  In addition to thought above, I've thought more about their behaviour.  The teacher said post your thoughts on a wiki, so they did.  They may have stopped to think "my thoughts add nothing to the existing wiki", but nonetheless they posted.  Why?  Perhaps because they were told to do so and feared the consequences of refusing to follow teacher's instructions - behaviourism.  Of course it could be that they couldn't be bothered.  Do we collaborate in a wiki because we are told to or because we think our contributions are valuable?  How do we manage the diversity of engagement by our diverse learners?

Final thought on thinking (that'll be cognition then).  Why did I not accredit my post?  Why the anonymity?  I don't want my cohorts to dislike me, think that I'm a smart arse "telling" them how they should have contributed to the wiki.  Those who care enough (and are smart enough) can find out who MM is, and if they do and want to better understand my reasoning, they can read this blog.

Mobile Wiki – removed as at 8.30pm and replaced with this summary at 11pm on 10/3/2011.

Hi all.  Mr Moderator here. 

My understanding of the wiki is that it is supposed to involve an exercise of collaborative authoring.  I don’t have time to consolidate and moderate all sections, so have limited my efforts to the comments posted under the “Negative Hat”.  Feel free to do the same to the other hats anyone.

I hope that the reduction from >1800 words, in no particular order, to <500 words under logical headings is seen as a positive move.  If not, contact Wendy and I’m sure she’ll be able to reinstate the previous version.  Don’t worry, the list of contributors hasn’t been removed, only individual initials.  You know which ones are yours.

MM

Usage issues

Potential for misuse

Difficult for those whose mobile phone use is ‘fun’ in their personal lives to switch to 'serious' use in school.

Distractive: temptation to use for non-learning use, e.g. texting, Facebook, playing games, etc.

Security/safety issues: cyber bullying; access to inappropriate websites and the responsibility/liability falling on the teacher/school in such an event.

Risk of cheating on assessments.

Difficult for teachers to control use, yet in the event of an incident, e.g. text bullying, or learners using phones outside the School’s frameworks and policies, could lead to disciplinary action against teachers.

Privacy/safety issues

Invasion of privacy through Bluetooth/uninvited viewing/hacking; creation and publishing of videos of inappropriate incidents (bullying, fights, accidents, injuries, etc), may lead to damaging reputation of the school.

Limited tracing functions to determine source of such privacy breaches.

Invasion of privacy through video and publishing of even everyday actions of teachers and pupils.

Economic issues

Expensive to implement (need to purchase or make available phones for all students, plus support/server/infrastructure issues.  

If school property, yet another item to get lost/broken/stolen with parents fronting the costs.

Many things could go wrong, easily damaged, and costly to keep up with rapidly changing technology.

Are parents willing to fund?  Would the child be prepared to fund this way of learning?

Potential for increase in socio-economic divide if parents to fund, leading to discrimination/bullying.

Lack of understanding as to their use and need by parents (“what’s wrong with a computer?”).

Does it have to be a special type of mobile? Not just phone itself, but coverage, usage packages, use outside schools, etc. too.

Pedagogical/socio-political/health issues

Provision by schools to provide an equitable learning environment where no learner is disadvantaged is a political issue; rather than pedagogical.

Less ability for a teacher to follow activities, thought processes and progress of learners, due to lack of recorded history on the phone.

Only one person can use the phone at any one time therefore it is a very isolating tool.

Replace face-to-face personal and verbal conversations.  Breeding a society where people do not know how to interact with each other without a digital medium. Need to provide an opportunity for learning social interactivity, rather than infect every minute of our lives with technology.

Are younger students mature enough to take a phone to school?

Mobile phones rarely allowed in work places, so why in schools?

Allowing so much freedom in a classroom setting will provoke youth to try to push the boundaries.

Small screens make viewing difficult and may contribute to poor eye-sight.

Risk of addiction to technology with young people showing altered behavioural states. Per Andrew Fuller Adolescent psychologist.

Mobiles argued to be safe, but (as with nuclear power and oil rigs) when something is considered safe that’s when we allow it to become unstable and cause problems.

*************************************************************

Comments on policies and procedures (including Queensland government policy) deleted.  Better placed under the “Process Hat”.