Learner Management vs. Facilitating Learning

I have been reflecting on my practice, giving thought to what I had deemed important in the past and where I am now with respect to technology.  When I started teaching elementary five years ago, I came out of the gate eager to embrace inquiry and experiment with new technologies.  I was fortunate to be in a school that valued technology and budgeted accordingly.  Over these few short years, I have engaged with a one-to-one laptop project, Lego Mindstorms robotics, blogging, podcasting, movie making, web design, and D2L.  I have always been keen on exploring new technologies because I believe that technology can support a variety of learning styles and open up multiple entry points for learners.  This week's readings have validated some of what I have done while forcing me to question their value and purpose.

Our Board subscribes to D2L (Desire to Learn) course management system, which houses content securely for its users.  I have used D2L for the past four years and experienced some of its positive aspects and frustrations along the way.  One of the key advantages is it presents a social learning opportunity for its users to reflect and comment on discussion topics both in and outside of the classroom.  While it may lack the "just-in-time, and sometimes playful" (p. 1) aspects of Twitter as Dunlap & Lowenthal (2009) suggested, it mimics this idea and has the benefit of being secure and Board-approved.

What is permitted for student use in our Board, particularly at the elementary level, is somewhat limited.  For example, when I proposed the use of Wallwisher for my students, I had a conversation with my principal about safety.  Could I guarantee that other users outside of my student base would not have access to wall postings they had made?  How could I assure my principal and parent base that these students would not be susceptible to any outside interference or influence?  The answer was found through D2L and posting the link to the Wallwisher boards within this environment.  After time consuming meetings, parent letter send home, and generating and posting individual wall URLs within D2L, we were able to use Wallwisher.  Was it worth it?  I'm not sure.

Now, I give this example because it speaks to a growing concern for student safety and FOIP-related issues.  In our attempts to facilitate learning, we must also recognize the need to manage content.  This is a tricky area to navigate because as an educator I want to open up opportunities for my students to participate in relevant social learning landscapes, but our responsibility to our parents is to keep their students safe.

Presently, I do not see a way around a system where, as Dunlap & Lowenthal reminded us, "the tools reside within the online system" and "the communication between and among students and faculty is scheduled based on when they have a moment to login to the LMS" (p. 2).  D2L is intentionally designed this way and I see no way around it currently.  Social media instruments such as Twitter, Second Life, and Facebook are all off limits, at least until we get to a place where we can convince parents and our Board these tools can ensure student safety.

Self-Paced Learning

The article, State of E-Learning in Canada, contains a quote regarding the benefits of e-Learning that captured my interest: "enabling students to control the timing, location, and pace of their studies" (p. 13).  I am reminded of a Ted Talk by Salman Khan using video to create a self-paced learning environment.  This approach is particularly poignant for my practice as there is significant talk around personalizing learning in our Board.  How then can a classroom allow for this?

Consider the following: inclusive education, mandated curriculum, differentiated instruction, personalized learning, cross-curricular connections, assessment for learning, and inquiry.  All of these terms have implications for practice and all are impacted by issues of funding, time, expertise, and professional development.  But did we not create these?  During my practicum a number of years ago, I remember a partner teacher of mine declaring, "In public education, all are welcome.  We don't pick and choose who we get, we take them all."  Indeed, we do welcome all and embrace diversity, however, with this our practice must shift accordingly.

Now what of personalized learning?  Perhaps we should take a closer look at Khan's work.  Khan started posting short You Tube math videos for his family and steadily received user feedback and requests to continue posting additional content.  This incidental approach to education has since garnished attention from the likes of Bill Gates and Khan has now formalized his self-paced approach by developing the Khan Academy (http://www.khanacademy.org/).  His site contains over 2400 videos on topics ranging from math to history to physics.

I am very impressed by Khan's work and inspired to take this into my classroom.  I'm wondering how to translate the e-Learning opportunity Khan has created to the physical classroom space.  I want my students to be able to create, revisit, and reflect on their learning at their own pace, yet the demands of curriculum and timetabling pose certain challenges.  I have experimented with D2L in past years and been pleased with some of the outcomes in terms of students extending their learning beyond the classroom.  Students have posted websites they've come across on a particular topic on their own time and contributed to discussion strands.  This may have some semblance of what Khan is doing while students are at home, yet when they return to the classroom the next day, curricular demands necessitate a different rhythm.

Further reflection and reading is needed in this area.