Questions Based Curriculum?

I recently went for a walk in the botanical gardens in Wellington.  Beautiful and all as the gardens were, I got distracted by the Carter Observatory located not far the from the cable car entrance into the gardens. The observatory has a planetarium and of course I had to go watch a show.  The show was entitled 'We are astronomers'.  The show was quite interesting as it attempted to tackle some common misconceptions people can have about what astronomy entails, and of course highlighted the fact that anybody can be an astronomer, professional or amateur.  During my PhD I worked part time with Astronomy Ireland, giving talks to primary and secondary school students and also public talks.   I found it interesting how the majority of questions I was asked had their context located in astronomy per se, but had their answer based in a broader range of subjects: physics, chemistry, biology, history, mathematics, geography, philosophy, etc..

Carter Observatory - Wellington, New Zealand

Typical questions were (and this is by no means an exhaustive list)…

·       How big are the planets?

·       Where do the planets get their names from?

·       Who gets to decide what new planets are called?

·       How do we know how big the planets are?

·       How do we know what the planets are made of?

·       Are people in Australia upside down?

·       What is inside a telescope?

·       What causes the northern lights?

·       Why did people use to think the world was flat?

·       Can you stand on the sun? (One of my favourite questions from some primary schools!)  One child replied to me "but what if you had a really big bucket of water to throw on the sun?".

·       Are we safe from the sun on earth?

·       What does ultraviolet mean?

·       Why is the sky blue?

·       Why is Pluto not a planet any more?

·       Why are planets round?

·       What are stars made of?

·       Why does a telescope need to be sent into space?

·       Would life be possible on earth if we had no moon?

·       Can you hear anything in space?

·       Why do some planets have rings?

·       Why is the moon sometimes visible during the day?

·       Do you believe in God?

·       What speed does a rocket have to reach to break the Earth's pull of gravity?

·       What is gravity?

·       Who was the first man in space?

·       What was the first animal in space?

·       What was the space race?

·       What are future projects planned for space?

·       Do you believe the world will end in 2012?

·       How far up do you have to go to reach space?

Planetarium - Wellington, New Zealand

In a previous blog post, I made reference to Postman and Weingartner (1971).  They put forward the imaginary scenario where school texts, curriculums, guidelines, etc., all disappear.  The important question they then ask is what would be worth knowing?  Postman and Weingartner propose the idea of a questions based curriculum.  Taking physics as a specific example, the questions noted above would cover many important areas established within traditional secondary school syllabi (light, sound, electricity, magnetism, heat, temperature, particle physics, mechanics, etc.).  However, the distinct difference is students would have developed these questions, would have a much more vested interest in the answers as a result, and further still, should be able to organise the knowledge in a much more coherent manner, as the knowledge has developed/emerged after their inquiries.  As already alluded to, such questions could easily encompass elements of other subjects and this should be encouraged for the holistic development of the student.  The compartmentalisation of subjects gives children the message that subjects lack connection (Steve Wheeler), whether it is intended or not. 

The elephant in the room, that Postman and Weingartner (1971) appear to avoid, is assessment.  What should assessment structures for new curriculum look like?  How can various levels of education take on board the changes needed by a new assessment structure?  There are certainly examples available of various assessments, but the issue is a social one.  As noted by Fullan (2001: xi) ‘We need to know what change feels like for teachers, principals and students and we need to understand institutional and organisational factors that affect the occurrence of change through the interactions between government, teacher unions, schools and communities’.   Any effort at educational change that does not ‘address the underlying organizational conditions [of the school system] can be viewed as doomed to tinkering’ (Stoll & Fink, 1995: 80). 

References

-Fullan, M. (2001) The new meaning of educational change, 3rd ed., London: RoutledgeFalmer.

-Postman, N. and Weingartner, C. (1971) Teaching as a subversive activity, Harmondsworth: Pengiun.

-Stoll, L. and Fink, D. (1995) Changing our Schools, Buckingham: Open University Press.

What, How, and Why Perspectives in Education.

With the emerging affordances of technology for education (Webb, 2005), what students are learning in schools is being increasingly debated (How they are being taught is a completely different argument).  Debates tend to centre on the amount and type of content that should be included in a curriculum versus the ability of students to be able to apply that content.  In psychology this can refer to declarative knowledge (the what) and procedural knowledge (the how).  However, this argument can be more explicitly developed by including knowledge relating to 'the why'.  From a research perspective, Dillon and Wals (2006) highlight three things researchers should consider, that are readily applicable to considering what students should know in schools.  These three things refer to ontology (the what), epistemology (the how) and axiology (the why).  All three considerations are important aspects of student understanding, but where the teaching focus should be is under debate.  Traditionally, students have been taught mostly 'the what', but with the rapid expansion of knowledge on the internet it is argued as redundant to be teaching students isolated facts (Ng & Gunstone, 2003; Steve Wheeler).  However, despite this argument, many teachers still favour a focus on declarative knowledge (Cronin-Jones, 1991; Gllyenpalm, Wickman, & Holmgren, 2010; Tobin & McRobbie, 1996)

Postman and Weingartner (1971) have a chapter in their thought-provoking book Teaching as a Subversive Activity 'What's worth knowing?'.  They present the interesting scenario of what if all syllabi, curricula, and textbooks disappeared ("the most common material impeding innovation in the schools" (p.52)), what would you do?

Postman and Weingartner (1971) propose one idea of having a questions-based curriculum where importantly, the students place value in the questions being asked and these questions must help students learn concepts that will help them survive in the present and future world.  The students are central in asking the questions, but do not necessarily have an exclusive input on deciding what questions are important.  Hence, the teacher can still play an important role.  An important point raised by such a scenario is including 'the why' of knowledge and more importantly, who is ultimately getting to decide it.


References:

-Cronin-Jones, L. (1991) 'Science teacher beliefs and their influence on curriculum implementation: Two case studies', Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 235-250.

-Dillon, J. and Wals, A. (2006) 'On the dangers of blurring methods, methodologies and ideologies in environmental education research', Environmental Education Research, 12(3/4), 549-558.-Postman, N. and Weingartner, C. (1971) Teaching as a subversive activity, Harmondsworth: Pengiun.
-Tobin, K. and McRobbie, C. (1996) 'Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted science curriculum', Science Education, 80, 223-241.
-Webb, M. (2005) 'Affordances of ICT in Science Learning: Implications for an Integrated Pedagogy', International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 705-735.

-Gyllenpalm, J., Wickman, P.-O. and Holmgren, S.-O. (2010) 'Teachers' language on scientific inquiry: Methods of teaching or methods of inquiry?' International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1151-1172.

-Ng, W. and Gunstone, R. (2003) 'Science and computer-based technologies: attitudes of secondary science teachers', Research in Science & Technological Education, 21(2), 243-264.

What Makes a Great Presentation?

I was recently at a talk on the 24th of November by Prof. Joe Schwarcz at Victoria University of Wellington (VUW).  The talk was entitled 'Are cows more trustworthy than chemists?'.  Prof. Joe Schwarcz is well known for giving informative and entertaining talks, helping the general public tackle many misconceptions that they have in terms of what scientists do, and understanding science in general.  He also has many published books in the area of scientific literacy.  If you have time I would recommend watching his talk on Science and the paranormal.  Needlesstosay I enjoyed his talk at VUW.  Joe's talk got me thinking about a number of different things, but what I wanted to consider in this blog post is what makes a great presentation?  Some of the presentations I have enjoyed watching are Bill Strickland (who I saw presenting at the University of Limerick in 2009), Prof. Randy Pausch, Sir Ken Robinson, and Prof. Hans Rosling.

Thoughout my PhD I have attended workshops on presentation skills that highlighted many effective aspects inherent in a great presentation.  I feel I definitely took something from these workshops and from observing other presenters in action, as I managed to win an Irish national competition involving a public presentation.  However, I have given bad presentations along the way too (See Don McMillan for a humorous account of common misuses of PowerPoint).  Doing good presentations is definitely a learning curve and I doubt few people start off as great presenters.  However, taking Joe's presentation and the other presentations noted above into account, many features of what makes a great presentation can be identified:

1. Eye Contact.
2. Movement.
3. Projection.
4. Tone.
5. Confidence.
6. Physical Objects.
7. Knowledge of the presenter.
8. Timing.
9. Progression.
10. Humour.
11. "Invisible" technology.
12. Pictures.
13. Rehearsel.

From considering these different features there is one common thread through which all the features can be tied to: Great story-telling.  The art of good story-telling has, is, and always will be valued by people, both young and old.  The features I have noted above are some of the devices used to enhance how the story is told.

1. Eye contact.  It is important to look at the audience so that you are not just telling a story, but you are telling 'them' the story.  Oftentimes, presenters appear to tell their slides or the back wall the story, instead of the audience.
2. Movement.  Movement can encompass walking across a room, using hand gestures, and various facial expressions.  This gives energy and enthusiasm to the stories within a presentation.  However, a lack of movement can also be useful depending on the point you want to get across.  It is valuable to invest in a PowerPoint clicker, so that you can move freely during a presentation.
3. Projection.  People need to be able to hear the story!  However, talking louder than normal at times can be useful to add emphasis to parts of a story.
4. Tone.  Distinct from projection in that emphasis can be put on particular syllables in different words without a relative change in volume.
5. Confidence.  Not an easy feature to develop and espouse considering most people's number one fear is public speaking.  However, nerves should be seen as a good thing, and even though you are nervous, it does not mean the audience notice at all.  Confidence can be reflected in the previous points above, but even a clear stance can show confidence.  Slumped shoulders should be avoided.
6. Physical objects.  The old cliche of a picture paints a thousand words, but so do other objects.  Unsubconsciously, people can also appreciate that you have went to the effort of adding variety to how you tell the story.
7. Knowledge of the presenter.  To tell a story, you need to know the important elements of the story and how these elements fit within the overall story.  An important aspect of being knowledgeable is that you have novel ideas to share with the audience you are speaking to.
8. Timing.  Certain parts of a story are told better in a fast or slow manner, depending on the feelings a presenter wants to evoke in the audience.  It is typically combined with other devices already noted, i.e., movement, projection, etc..
9. Progression.  It is important that the presenter does not over concentrate on certain points that do not enhance the overall impact of the story.  People's capacity to listen to one story being told is short.  Also, linked with timing, people can be frustrated when a story goes over the time they expected to give to it.  If a presenter has 30 minutes to speak, they should finish within this time.
10. Humour.  This can vary for different people.  Something funny for one group of people might not be funny for the next group of people.  Certain visual images can be a useful device for humour, beyond the characteristics of the presenter themselves. 
11. "Invisible" technology.  In any good modern day presentation, the technology fades into the background.  People hardly notice it, as they are more, or hopefully are more, engaged in the story the presenter is telling.  When technology becomes an issue, the flow of the story is interrupted.  Steve Jobs, who is typically cited as a great presenter, even ran into the issue of technology not working during one of his presentations.  Technology not working in a presentation highlights the importance of preparation.
12. Pictures.  Pictures give a quick snapshot of aspects of the story and add to the overall appreciation of the story.  In what may be viewed as more academic presentations, some presenters tend to load their slides with a lot of text.  In an academic context, an audience are willing to accept a certain amount of text on slides, particularly quotes.  However, as the presenter you are there to add meaning to the quotes and not simply read off the slides.  It is also confusing to an audience when there is a lot of text to read and the presenter is still talking.  Not many people are good are listening and reading at the same time.
13. Rehearsel.  Telling any story for the first time can sound a little bit rusty and rough around the edges.  In any great presentation, the presenter is sure of the key points they want to make and has rehearsed the presentation beforehand.  It becomes very obvious from watching a presentation if the presenter has rehearsed it.

These are some of the features that stand out to me in terms of what adds to the core aspect of a successful presentation: great story-telling.  It is no easy feat to encompass all of these aspects within one presentation, but to aim in the general direction is certainly a good start.  Please feel free to comment and let me know if there are other ones that I have left out.

A Small World

Well here it is, my first blog post.  I have debated about what to write on my first blog post, but I think the most pertinent thing to talk about is what got me thinking about setting up a blog in the first place.  I arrived into Wellington three weeks ago (for a 10 month post-doctorate at Victoria University of Wellington).  I spent the first weekend getting over jetlag, but decided to go on a Lord of the Rings (LOTR) tour around Wellington the following weekend.  It was a sunny Saturday afternoon as I boarded the Movie Tours bus.  I sat across from someone called Steve Wheeler.  Steve (University of Plymouth) has done various research into e-learning including wikis, podcasts, blogging, etc., has published widely in the area, and has been/is on different editorial boards.  I found it quite the coincidence that I should bump into someone like Steve, considering I have just started a research post-doctorate looking at the use of wikis with secondary school teachers.  The old cliche of 'It is a small world' jumped to mind.  However, Steve and I did not have much opportunity to discuss such things in any great detail, as there were so many great activities to do and pictures to be taken on the Movie Tours.  Ted, the tour guide, was very knowledgeable about all things LOTR related and an all round nice guy.  Ted explained to the tour group that he very much lives to work instead of working to live (which gave me the idea of what to name the blog!).  It really was an enjoyable afternoon and I would highly recommend it for any LOTR fans who happen to be in New Zealand.

I exchanged e-mail details with Steve at the end of the tour, but needlesstosay it was not hard to find him online.  I do not know why I was surprised, considering he is extensively involved in e-learning.  I read a few of Steve's more recent blog posts and found them very interesting, in terms of the reflective element of his blogs, but also the fact that it was in a public space, sharing and open to input from others.  The current project I am undertaking is trying to encourage teachers to collaborate more online and share their experiences with other teachers, as teaching can be very insular.  From considering the potential of blogs, I considered my own practice as a researcher and noted the insular nature of a lot of what I do (reading journal articles/books, preparing presentations, writing applications, etc.).  There are always questions of if you have something valuable to offer on a blog, and what others may say.  However, I have now started to view blogs differently.  I can make my practice more explicit on a blog, use it to gather my thoughts, reflect on issues I encounter, and who knows, someone else might find something useful on it and even offer me some further insight or points of reference.

A week after the LOTR tour I went to the University of Waikato in Hamilton (this Monday) and heard that there were talks being hosted by the e-learning department that afternoon.  I again bumped into Steve Wheeler who happened to be one of the presenters.  He gave some useful ideas related to creative learning (see Steve Wheeler - Creative Learning).  I was pleased to hear his response to my query if it was a technology related talk.  He responded "Not technology, it's about learning."  It reminded me of one of my supervisors from my PhD, Oliver McGarr, who argued in a 2009 paper the importance of presenting initiatives not as ICT initiatives, but as teaching and learning initiatives.  It is an important reminder to always keep the learning focus to the fore when using any technology in education.