Scenario Learning with a Collaborative Twist
For the last few months, many of teachers at my school have been extolling the benefits of Google Docs with their students. There simply is no doubt that when we approach writing as a collaborative medium, there is a fundamental shift in the paradigm and both students and teachers are forced to rethink what we value and how we work.
As a technology leader, the question I often field is: “I can see how amazing the technology is, but what can I do with it?” While the counter-question – “how long is a piece of string?”- doesn’t work wonders for the imagination, the point is that many teachers will really struggle to think of ways of applying collaborative documents – quite apart from the rules, parameters and conditions in which it takes place.
I think that when we’re faced with daunting new technology, one possible approach that works wonders is scenario learning. This is why I’ve been exploring the value of hypothetical, imaginative and lateral thinking with my Year 7 Connected Learning class this term. I also cooked up this semi-real, semi-fictional scenario to get them thinking about the roles that historians, public relations experts, education consultants and ethicists play in important decisions where key stakeholders are required – in this case, with reference to the World Heritage arm of UNESCO:
September 11th Scenario
Ground Zero is a term that refers to the site on which the New York Twin Towers were built. On September 11, 2001, the towers were destroyed when two planes carrying passengers were hijacked and crashed into them.
Currently, there are plans afoot to build two new replacement towers, along with a multi-storey shopping complex, a local mosque and a number of other amenities. At the same time, the World Heritage Panel is considering whether or not to list the site as an important cultural heritage site. If the listing goes ahead, constraints will be placed on further development, but at this stage the nature of these constraints is unclear.
You are an expert (historian, public relations officer, education consultant or ethicist) sitting at the table for a FIVE MINUTE preliminary meeting to consider whether or not the site should be proposed for World Heritage Listing. In the event that it is accepted by the World Heritage Panel, arguments for or against further development around the site will need to be considered.
In your meeting, you may consider one or more of the following (start with one and add others if you have time):
- should the new twin towers be built?
- is it appropriate to build a mosque nearby?
- is it appropriate to build a shopping complex?
- what limits (if any) should be placed on further development?
You are to record your position as an expert in a group Google Document, which will be a TRANSCRIPT of the first five minutes of your discussion. NB – your discussion does not have to be resolved in any way at this stage. However, as you are working in groups of FOUR, your document will include experts from all of four fields we have studied this week.
As they began working, many kids struggled with how to get started: “who should write first?” “what should I say?” were among the questions asked by weaker-ability students. I encouraged kids to simply write something from the perspective of their role, irrespective of what other kids were writing or might write. In this scenario, starting with an introduction from the perspective of, say, the ethicist, students needed to simply get their main argument across into the document before reacting to the views expressed by other roles. The other key ingredient to this kind of task is imagination. “As the public relations expert, who do you know?” “As the ethicist, whose story have you heard most recently that has moved you to the point where you need to advocate on behalf of this person?” You might say that since the very core of scenario learning is the imagination of the scenario itself, imagination feeds imagination!
The results were qualitatively different to a conventional script or singly-authored piece of work, and I argue that it’s very important to discuss differences between collaborative authorship and single authorship with students. As a follow-up task, I had my groups email a published copy of their document to another group in the class. The outsiders then read the published version carefully and produced an ISVAPS on it (a scaffold that focuses on I)ssues S)peakers V)iews A)lternatives P)roblems and S)olutions). At this stage you have a whole range of learning and talking points:
- which transcripts were resolved? which were not? why/why not?
- who had the most unique alternative perspective on the issues
- were there any “unexpected” issues that arose? why?
- what have you learned about how you work in this kind of group?
- what does this tell you about some of the problems that UNESCO needs to deal with?
At the end of the day, it’s great to see how easy this kind of learning can be with a good scenario. Hopefully it’s just a little bit closer to how things in the real world work?
On Tipping Points and Working Collaboratively
I’m lucky to be an English teacher working in such a dynamic and vibrant time for the English language. Having obtained my English degree more than ten years ago, I’ve seen the way we read, respond and write change so much in so short a time. However, I suspect that like many of early (and now obsolete) IT degrees, my degree no longer says a whole lot about my ability to interpret the texts of the twenty-first century. Sure – it says that I’m a relatively astute reader and reasonably well-read. But is that enough to cut the mustard nowadays?
Web 2.0 – also dubbed the ‘read/write web’ – is powerful, not really because anyone can publish anything on a whim, but because the ways that we read, critique and write have all transformed, relatively speaking, overnight. Looking at texts like Wikipedia is a process that demands a completely new approach. The fact that so many teachers simply criticise websites like this as ‘unscholarly’ or ‘inaccurate’ misses the point, and says much more about their unwillingness to understand the way in which these texts are constructed, the values they represent and the potential they hold for the future. Perhaps this is why the illusive Web 3.0 is dubbed ‘the semantic web’? In the coming years, the focus will move beyond basic access to the information on the internet and much more towards how meaning is made, inferred and understood.
In my very small way, I’ve been gently pushing my school towards understanding the collaborative power of Web 2.0 through Google Docs as part of Google Apps Education Edition. We seem to have come a long way, too.
On Monday I ran a staff inservice on the potential of teacher-student shared documents to streamline study processes through the example of collaborative class topic notes. The following day, my English Coordinator launched full-force into using Google Docs with her Standard English class and became an instant convert. Less than two days later, she was teaching the rest of the English Department all about it and in my free periods before lunch, I had a steady stream of teachers coming to ask me how to edit tables, publish links, check revision histories and change text formatting.
Such lessons are probably still beyond me for the time being. Other teachers who take an idea, run with it and transform it into something their own will add immeasurable value to any basic explanation or demonstration I offer. They are my real teachers, and from whom I still have a lot to learn.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYPjJK6LZdM]
Google Apps: On Scalable Web 2.0
Colleagues often tell me that what makes me a credible and helpful technology mentor is the sheer number of hours I spend in the classroom. Although teachers can be a cynical lot, I tend to agree that when corporate technology experts step into schools to trial something new, they often miss the mark simply because they fail to understand what it is like teaching a six-period day. Teachers can and will baulk at new technology because it means extra work. The challenge is in convincing them that the work will pay off, both for them professionally and for their students’ learning. My relative success is in making sure of this payoff for myself before I suggest something to colleagues.
Web 2.0 is a classic case-in-point. There are incredible gains to be made when incorporating some – or a full range – of web-based tools, services and applications into the curriculum. As a teacher, I cope with this well. I find it easy to set up a class list of Wikispaces accounts, manage threaded discussions, share media and facilitate collaborative reading and writing.
The problem is that what one teacher does in one classroom is all-too-often difficult to replicate and scale up across other classes, year groups or whole schools. Keeping track of user names and passwords for Blogger pages or Gliffy accounts is time-consuming – even the most able technology-minded teacher tears hair out when students lose (or can’t/won’t remember) basic details. Other teachers who struggle with the technology may simply avoid it altogether or pay lip service.
My reflection on Web 2.0 is that it needs to be taken in slow, measurable and scalable steps. Scalability is the main reason why I’ve decided to go with Google Apps Education Edition – which gives administrative control to domain owners to create email and apps accounts for an entire education institution. This gives us a starting point for all students in the school to be able to log in and access some of the best Web 2.0 collaborative tools available. Most importantly, we create and control the accounts – which provides security and a consistent experience. When teachers are ready to try online collaboration, the accounts are ready and students know how to use them.
For anyone who doesn’t know about Google Apps Education Edition, you might find the following video of interest:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRYRbPCHTck]
