Can sociological researchers make use of big data? Should they? There’s something equivocal going on between the allure of massive data sets and the temptation to try and explain everything in terms of that data…
Fresh off the press, we have a new volume available for review at the Journal of Interactive Media in Education. If you’re interested in reviewing the following volume for us, please drop me a line.
Marilyn Leask, Norbert Pachler (eds.) Learning to Teach Using ICT in the Secondary School – A companion to school experience (3rd Edition) Routledge (2014) – 262 pp.
Here’s the blurb:
Learning to Teach Using ICT in the Secondary School offers teachers of all subjects a comprehensive, practical introduction to the extensive possibilities that ICT offers pupils, teachers and schools. Under-pinned by the latest theory and research, it provides practical advice and guidance, tried-and-tested examples, and covers a range of issues and topics essential for teachers using ICT to improve teaching and learning in their subject.
The third edition has been fully updated in light of rapid changes in the field of both ICT and education and includes six brand new chapters.
I realise I haven’t been keeping up with blogging here (the perennial blogging complaint), mainly because I’ve been contributing blogs to the OER Research Hub project. But I think there should be a bit more activity here as well as a bit of cross-posting (oh for the ability to re-blog between .com and .org installs on WordPress…).
What’s prompted this is a presentation I’ve just attended by Kari Arfstorm of the Flipped Learning Network. I hadn’t previously been aware of an explicit connection between the ‘flipped’ learning methodology and a particular kind of pedagogical approach. For those who are unaware, here’s the skinny on ‘flipped’ learning from the FLN site:
Flipped learning is intended to make more efficient use of classroom time by making sure that passive learning (e.g. reading, watching lecture) takes place away from the classroom and the time spent in the classroom makes the most of discussion, debate and inquiry. Kari made an explicit connection between this approach and Socratic method – one I hadn’t made myself until now.
I confess to still being a little unclear on exactly how Socratic we should take flipped learning to be; or the ways in which flipping encourages a certain kind of pedagogy. Kari suggested in the session that some subjects (e.g. mathematics) we might abide by a more authoritative teaching model in order to reflect the ‘hard’ nature of the subject while in the humanities we might employ a more authentically Socratic method. I’m behind the curve on the whole thinking behind flipping, but a few thoughts come to mind:
- Part of my confusion seems to arise from the fact that I understand Socratic method as anti-didactic. Of course, it’s still a form of instruction (hence the irony) but ultimately a kind of facilitated self-instruction.
- Socrates does in fact use this method to ‘teach’ mathematics. In Plato’s Meno he takes a young slave boy and demonstrates his innate knowledge of Euclidean geometry by asking him questions rather than ‘teaching’ him.
Do you observe, Meno, that I am not teaching the boy anything, but only asking him questions; and now he fancies that he knows how long a line is necessary in order to produce a figure of eight square feet; does he not?
- ‘Flipping’ seems (at least at first glance) to be an irony-free approach to pedagogy, which makes its Socratic status unclear to me.
- In some dialogues, Socrates is often regarded as a mouth-piece for Platonic ideas. We don’t mean this kind of instruction when we talk about Socratic pedagogy but obviously there’s a lot of debate about when & where this is happening and why.
In any case, it seems that simply ‘flipping’ the classroom need not in itself result in more critical forms of reasoning and/or learning, though it’s easy to see how having a bit more time devoted to discussion or ‘higher-order’ pedagogical exercises might facilitate this.
When I asked Kari about this aspect of ‘flipping’ she said that the connection was not simply to Socratic methods but to some of the pedagogical approaches inspired by critical approaches. Foremost among these seems to be physicist Eric Mazur‘s concept of peer instruction which dates from the early 1990s.
Peer Instruction encourages more interactive engagement by replacing lectures with small group discussions of concepts, supplemented by larger discussions punctuated by mini-lectures between questions. Students contemplate answers individually then discuss the explanations for their answers with their peers and come to agreement on the underlying physics (or models).
Here’s an outline of the process based on C. Turpen and N. Finkelstein (2010).
Here’s a lecture by Eric Mazur which explains his approach to peer-based learning.
I feel like I’ve learned something today as I have a better understanding of some of the pedagogical principles underlying the idea of ‘flipping’ the classroom. But I also feel that it may be better to think of these approaches as encouraging a kind of intellectual or critical autonomy (undoubtedly a Socratic aspiration) rather than thinking of them as Socratic per se.
Interestingly, the idea of Socratic reasoning also came through in a separate presentation today. Thanh Le (of the Vital Signs project) explained how ther schoolchildren use negative method of hypothesis elimination in order to improve their knowledge of native and invasive flora and fauna.