This post is in response to an article in the Weekend Australian Magazine: Funky School (Overington, 2011). It foregrounds the move by numerous schools across Australia towards learning in agile spaces; that is, spaces where students can choose what they learn, with whom they will learn, and where they will learn (inside the classroom or outside). Naturally, these spaces are conducive to the use of mobile technology: laptops, iPods, iPads. Whitby (Executive Director of Schools for the Diocese of Parramatta, as cited by Overington, 2011) argues as does Davidson (2011, p.12), "[our] economy ... has been transformed irrevocably by globalisation and the changes wrought by the information age. If kids must face the challenges of this new, global, distributed information economy, what are we doing to structure the classroom of the twenty-first century to help them?"
The answer at Our Lady of Lourdes School, in Sydney, is to have these open spaces with 120 students and three teachers working together to learn.
The concern raised in the article centres around the experimental nature of the spaces. "Walls came down" in the 1970s and open learning spaces were all the rage; until the walls came back up because the spaces were considered a failure. Donnelly (Director of the Education Standards Institute in Melbourne, as cited in Overington, 2011) explains that the reason open learning failed was because students, especially primary aged and particularly boys, require structure, direction; they need rote. Overington (2011) goes on to report that this time around it is different; technology has changed how these spaces can operate. Although she does not report how technology has changed the use of open learning spaces, she does allude to how students appear engaged and focused on learning activities when she does visit these spaces. However, those who are hesitant about these areas state that evidence is required to substantiate such assertions. Indeed, how will relevant outcomes be determined? From where will this evidence come? NAPLAN? Most realise that there is more to learning than can be examined by such a test.
Teaching is more complex than just having access to technology, infrastructure or spaces. Poor pedagogical practices cannot hide behind technology. I heard a story about a young teacher who complained to the Directory of Studies at her school, "I can't teach. My laptop's not working." One thing is certain though; I agree with Turner (cited by Overington, 2011) when he states that spaces, technology or infrastructure alone will not deliver results. He explains that it is about the teachers, the quality of the pedagogy in the classroom, "If you can get that right, you can pretty much teach in a tent." However, throw in WiFi and that tent looks more attractive.
What do you think?
The answer at Our Lady of Lourdes School, in Sydney, is to have these open spaces with 120 students and three teachers working together to learn.
The concern raised in the article centres around the experimental nature of the spaces. "Walls came down" in the 1970s and open learning spaces were all the rage; until the walls came back up because the spaces were considered a failure. Donnelly (Director of the Education Standards Institute in Melbourne, as cited in Overington, 2011) explains that the reason open learning failed was because students, especially primary aged and particularly boys, require structure, direction; they need rote. Overington (2011) goes on to report that this time around it is different; technology has changed how these spaces can operate. Although she does not report how technology has changed the use of open learning spaces, she does allude to how students appear engaged and focused on learning activities when she does visit these spaces. However, those who are hesitant about these areas state that evidence is required to substantiate such assertions. Indeed, how will relevant outcomes be determined? From where will this evidence come? NAPLAN? Most realise that there is more to learning than can be examined by such a test.
Teaching is more complex than just having access to technology, infrastructure or spaces. Poor pedagogical practices cannot hide behind technology. I heard a story about a young teacher who complained to the Directory of Studies at her school, "I can't teach. My laptop's not working." One thing is certain though; I agree with Turner (cited by Overington, 2011) when he states that spaces, technology or infrastructure alone will not deliver results. He explains that it is about the teachers, the quality of the pedagogy in the classroom, "If you can get that right, you can pretty much teach in a tent." However, throw in WiFi and that tent looks more attractive.
What do you think?
