March 24

This is the second last class.
It will be devoted almost entirely to an examination of pedagogic frameworks.

But first a poem that I read in Teaching at the University of Manitoba: A Handbook p. 3.4

You encounter two bricklayers.
You ask each one what they are doing.
The first tells you he is just laying bricks.
The second tells you she is building a cathedral...
A grand structure that will seat 2000...
A building that will serve the community in many ways.

Hmmm... We will begin by looking at this poem. (This is what we call examining technology as text, or hermeneutics.) If you are confused when I call poetry a technology, let me remind you that McLuhan considered language to be the greatest technology of all. I checked this out further, and came across the poet lauriate of the USA, Robert Pinsky. From an interview:

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Some people might find modern technology antithetical to poetry, even dangerous to the very personal art that poetry is, but you don't, do you?

ROBERT PINSKY: Well, that's the conventional idea, but poetry is, itself, a technology. Verse is a very ancient technology designed for memory and that also achieves a lot of speed. It's a technology of the voice, of the grunts that a very resourceful primate makes.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/april97/poet_4-2.html

and elsewhere:

The human appetite for memory and entertainment is so immense that we seem to want to add every new technology we can; the model of one technology (TV, movies, cyberspace, whatever) replacing older technologies (print, poetry, memorization, etc.) seems to me faulty--it underestimates our ravenous appetite for All of the Above.
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/aandc/trnscrpt/pinsky.htm

Sounds like I am way off the beaten track doesn't it? I hope a brief discussion at the beginning of the class will pull it together.

THEN THIS...

Two weeks ago we began to explore the concept of pedagogic frameworks which focuses on the “front end” of curriculum design. A traditional curriculum design model is based on a Tylerian technical model. In class we examined extensions of this model, most notably that of Oliva.

From a purely practical perspective, a curriculum document is a concrete example of such an approach. Another concrete example, more common at the university level is the so-called “course syllabus.

The pedagogic framework model argues for the necessity to step back and to look at course development from three perspectives. These are a pedagogic framework, the educational setting and the organizational context.

Two readings by Goodyear anchor this approach. At least two additional papers might shed light on this process. Nunes and McPherson (2003) focus in some detail on distinguishing between Constructivism and Objectivism from a practical perspective, noting that “pedagogical models based on moderate constructivist approaches” may be the most useful. Note: Full text is available if you sign in as a UM student.

On the other hand, a salutary caution is illustrated by Ixer (1999) arguing that There is no such thing as reflection. (Full text also available if you sign in as a UM student). What he is arguing is that “reflection” has simply become another step on an outcomes-based model. This, of course, is contradictory. Reflection is not the same thing as propositional knowledge or behavioural skills. It is “tacit knowledge”. The word tacit means “implied without being stated.”

We began by dividing into several small groups of 3-4.
Your initial task was to take Edub7560 as an example and then follow the Goodyear framework. Essentially we will pick up on this task.

The reason for choosing Edub7560 is so that we all have a common framework. In all cases, you should be able to extrapolate to your own situation. The idea is not to evaluate the course, but rather to attempt to position it within a pedagogical perspective.

Goodyear provides the outline; you will fill in the details. The result should be a useful reflective analysis of the course. Of course this is an after-the-fact analysis.

Your task:

Use the Goodyear pedagogic framework graphic as a model and the Goodyear document starting at Section 2 (page 12) of the EDNER document and examine this course from the following perspectives:
1. Identify the apparent philosophic orientations based on Shuell’s four models
2. Examine the propositions of good teaching (Table 2.1)
3. Examine Table 2.2 on conceptions of teaching.
4. Determine how to place all of these in the graphic framework.
5. Explore table 2.3
6. Explore the issues on the right hand side of the pedagogical framework graphic titled educational setting. Identify (and relate) Edub7560 tasks, student activity and environment. Don’t try to capture all the course activities/tasks. That would keep you here all night. Instead, attempt to capture a sampling.

End Product for the evening: In a normal course of events, this data would be formulated into a formal paper. In this case, for the last 30 minutes of class time, starting at say 7:45-8:00, each group will have the opportunity to present to the entire class their findings. You do not need to attempt to overview the elements of the entire Goodyear document. Rather, to mix metaphors: attempt a broad brushstroke to see what “comes to the top” after such an analysis. What have you learned (a) about the course Edub756, but more importantly (b) what does this exercise say about developing and explicating a pedagogic strategy. Do you do this already for your courses? Does it help? Does it focus differently than the traditional course curricula provided by the department? What else?


Some thoughts:
1. The idea of pedagogic framework seems especially popular in programs that are introducing new technologies into teaching and learning. The argument is that we have too often introduced technologies without a pedagogic framework, and that is the reason they have been unsuccessful in the past. However, to me, technology is something natural and not forced. At no time in this course did I deliberately say to myself (nor I think to you) that “I am going to deliberately attempt to integrate technology into this course,” Instead, I believe it came naturally. We used video, and DVD and blogs and Nicenet and YouTube and CDs … none of this, on my part, was a conscious attempt to integrate media. It was simply a natural way to deliver or supplement or explain content, or to provide a framework for communication.

2. I am a little puzzled at the use of the phrase e-learning. Again going back to Goodyear (Sorry to overuse him so much this time) e-learning is “the systematic use of networked multimedia computer technologies to empower learners, improve learning, connect learners to people and resources supportive of their needs, and to integrate learning with performance and individual with organizational goals.” Hmmm… Isn’t that natural at this point? Is not all learning e-learning? Or, to say it the other way, do we need the e? Can we not just say learning? Then looking at the first part of Goodyear’s definition, (“the systematic use of networked multimedia computer technologies”) one has to wonder why restrict the modes of learning? It is like saying “learning to cook with a microwave”, instead of “learning to cook”.

3. I am clearly a radical when it comes to technology, because, although I agree that it is critically important (if only because technology is ubiquitous), I do not agree that specific technologies need to be selected out. Teachers need to understand the pedagogy of using technologies more than the technology itself. Nardi and O’Day in Information Ecologies: Using Technologies with Heart write : “We define an information ecology to be a system of people practices value, and technologies in particular local environment. In information ecologies, the spotlight is not on technology, but on human activities that are served by technology” Famously, and in the same vein, Martin Heidegger remarked that “the question concerning technology is nothing technological.”

4. Pedagogically we are getting and receiving mixed signals. On the one hand, we are told that constructivism is a model of teaching/learning that focuses away from telling and towards getting the learner actively (and authentically) involved. Yet we evaluate by a time-honoured technical model. Look at the University SEEQ evaluation and you will see that it is built on the assumptions of a behaviourist / technical model. So, as we have already begun to ask: What might a postmodern curriculum look like? Are we really moving towards a constructivist philosophy?

More later...