Category Archives: Personalization

Five Apps that Support Group Work in the Classroom

Constructivist Learning Theory emphasises the value of Group Work in the Classroom. As Vygotsky has highlighted, learning is first social before it becomes internalised. In other words the more opportunities students have to discuss and work through any content, the greater the opportunity to internalise that content. And yet many students have a hatred of group work. Learning to work with other people is not easy. Those with a healthy work ethic often do not know how to handle interactions with those who have less of a motivation to finish a task. Those who are used to achieving high marks for their individual assignments often feel resentful towards those who who turn in work they consider drags them down. Should they just take over and do all the work themselves, or do they accept peer contributions which they consider sub-standard? Others in the group may be resentful of those who try to take over, or who come across as bossy or exacting. And yet, more than ever, learning to work together and think interdependently is considered a crucial and employable skill.

Are there any digital applications which can help quieten the choppy Group Work waters? Here are five suggestions.

1. Google Docs

Google Docs provide unparalleled functionality for facilitating collaborative text authoring. A document can be shared with all members of the group, and the teacher, and then all who have been given editing rights can simultaneously work on the document. All changes are saved automatically. There is an online chat facility, and authors can leave comments and suggest edits. One of the greatest limitations on collaboration has always been the difficulties around sharing a document and writing one up. One member of the group often had to volunteer to do the “write up”. Google docs allows for this workload to be shared.

Teachers can carefully scaffold tasks within a Google doc and then share the document with a group so that the steps to be taken are highlighted, and strategies which might be deployed to afford collaborative thinking are suggested. In the graphic, the teacher is suggesting that de Bono Thinking Hats might help the group explore explore the topic though parallel thinking. Teachers can comment at any stage during the authoring process much as teachers circulating in a classroom can eavesdrop and intervene where necessary to get a group back on track. This allows teachers to  continue scaffolding learning in class, and outside class while students are authoring their write up.

These affordances for collaborative authoring and scaffolding make Google docs one of the most valuable educational tools to emerge in recent years. Students are able to use Google docs both while in group discussion, and for after-school homework.

2. is a web-based tool, with limited free and paid options. It allows users to set up a mind-map board which groups discussing a topic can use to create mind maps and save these as a jpeg, png or even html, which can be downloaded and shared. Upgrading to paid versions allows users to share a mind-map which can then be used for follow-up tasks.

One of the limitations of any paper based mind-map is how to share it, if the ideas are needed for follow-up action. To my mind, mind mapping tools offer the key affordance of guiding discussion around how ideas fit together. It forces students to address issues such as where does this idea fit? This helps sharpen an argument. allows grid, tree and bubble layouts. You can insert files only with an upgraded paid version, but the free version does allow links, so students can use the mind map to record useful links.

Some way of recording a discussion in a form which can later be shared is invaluable, but mind maps are especially valuable because they force students to simultaneously organise their thoughts.

3. Padlet

Padlet is a web-based tool which has free and paid options. The free version allows up to four walls. On a wall you can add files, voice and video recordings, links searched from within Google, text and doodles. You can share the wall with other users, each with authoring rights, or share a link, or wall saved as pdf or image.

The chief affordance to my mind is the facility for co-authors to add voice or video messages to the wall. This provides a superb tool for a group to collect resources and leave commentary both while planning a project, and when leaving a report back, with group members recording commentary on different aspects of a topic.

A teacher can set up a topic and invite students to co-author a document, thus setting up a group, and providing impetus sources if required, or groups can set up their own walls and share with each other informally, or with the teacher, formally. Walls have different themes and templates which can be applied. A wall can be deleted when it is no longer needed.

4. Kahoot!

Kahoot! is a tool which allows students to create quizzes or games or discussion boards which they can then share with the rest of the class. This is a great end product which encourages a group to research a topic, master the content and share with the class in the form of a quiz. Students find Kahoots engaging to create and to consume. This provides one means a teacher can use to ensure that the end product is itself engaging and encourages the group to take care in its creation.

Thinking of suitable questions to ask the rest of the class is a great way to get students to dig down deeper into a topic than they might otherwise have done so. The competitive nature of the quizzes also seems to encourage students to put in greater effort.

5. Lino

Lino is a sticky note web-based application which allows multiple users to post sticky notes on a topic. Users can post files, links to videos or images on an electronic cork-board. This allows for group-based brainstorming. It is a very versatile tool in that it can be used by a group or whole class and used for multiple purposes from group discussion through to presentation and feedback or reflection.

I like to use it as a reflection tool for students to post final comments on a topic after group-based feedback presentations have been made. It is quick and visual  and allows for a rapid round-up of reflections or comments and makes for a good way to sign off on a topic.

For a teacher it is a good way to spot any comments which reveal need for further action. Maybe some aspect of the topic needs to be picked up on at a later stage, or could do with further exploration.

This list of tools is by no means exhaustive. There may be better examples of applications with improved functionality. All of these tools, however, represent different ways in which collaborative group-based work can be usefully supported and enhanced. Please use the comments to suggest other tools, or share how you are using these tools.








Mentoring – The Killer App? Using Game Mechanics to achieve Differentiated Learning Opportunities.

One of the great conundrums facing education is that while we as teachers know that students only learn effectively when they are in their proximal zones of development, ie. learning something just a little above their current competence, we sit with classes of twenty to forty students, each one with different learning needs! How to personalise learning when economics determines larger class sizes remains the burning issue of our times. In an ideal world all classes might be one-on-one, or relatively small group sessions when preferred. In that way all instruction could be tailored towards the precise needs of each individual student. Those promoting the use of computers have long touted the machine as an answer. BF Skinner’s teaching machines promised the panacea of an infinitely patient machine providing students with individualised content and appropriate feedback, using branching procedures to make sure that each student received exactly what they needed to maximise learning. These machines did not work, however, and were quickly labelled drill and kill!

Now it might be that advances in Artificial Intelligence will deliver machines more capable of the subtlety and empathy required for effective content delivery and feedback, but we are not there yet. In my experience computer driven instructional software tends to be rejected by students overwhelmingly. The classroom still sits with the problem of one teacher and multiple students, and no clear way to offer personalization efficiently and effectively. Dan Buckley’s Personalisation By Pieces approach offers perhaps the best solution yet. Students create pieces of work which demonstrate mastery of skills. This work is uploaded electronically and assessed by a peer mentor who has passed the skill level being demonstrated. This provides the student with accreditation at that level and enables them to mentor and assess others. There is more to the system than this, but in a nutshell this is what is used to establish a cycle of virtuous practice designed to create independent learners.

The model presented is of two possible routes for Personalisation, one teacher lead (T-Route) and the other student driven (P-Route). The uses of ICT are accordingly different, specifically being used to monitor and record progress, and link peer mentors and mentees and provide them with channels of communication rather than to prepare teacher resources and instructional materials. Crucially learning becomes student-directed, with multiple pathways available and students able to choose which direction they wish to pursue. The key difference between the Personalisation By Pieces approach and Skinner’s Teaching Machines lies in the key insight that mentorship works to the benefit of both parties! Students who have completed a level are more than capable and benefit from helping explain, mentor and assess the work of their peers.

As Vygotsky noted, learning is social in the first instance, and we need the assistance of a more experienced other to help us bridge the gap between what we already know or can do, and what it is that we are learning. A system which uses peer mentor assessment could be crucial in providing the kind of individualised feedback that promotes personalised learning pathways. In my view this does not down-play the role of the teacher, whose whole class instruction and oversight of progress remains crucial.

Now the PbyP approach obviously crosses the borders of individual classrooms and schools in linking mentors and mentees, but it would be interesting to see what could be done even within individual classrooms and without the benefit of a custom-built ICT platform like PbyP.

Computer Gaming is often seen as the enemy of education, but as James Paul Gee has pointed out in his book What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy, computer games demonstrate principles of learning in remarkably efficient ways! Players are kept in their proximal zones of development and learning is artfully scaffolded. Players do not feel daunted by failure, they simply try and try and try again. Ample time is given for these re-takes, and the rewards are epic! No player seems to resent someone who is a level or two ahead of them, they simply strive to get their themselves. Players are also generous in their assistance, mentoring newbies and sharing strategies and tactics. We could do a lot worse than getting our classrooms to emulate games.

I am not arguing that every lesson should be gamified, or that the syllabus should be rewritten as a game. There is a great deal of knowledge which cannot be gamified. But I am suggesting that game mechanics should be used as exemplars of classroom management practice. In a game, players take on urgent tasks, but not necessarily in any given order. They tend to tackle that task and keep working at it until a solution is found. They may suffer spectacular failure, but bounce back until they succeed. Players collaborate to help each other out. This is exactly what we would like to see in the classroom. But how do we get the same effects without trivializing the tasks involved?

As a teacher of English Second Language, I often found a great deal of differentiation in level amongst the students in my class. But with classes of 35 plus, addressing everyone’s specific needs was difficult without creating a variety of tasks graded for ability. This is not really very difficult to do. Take comprehension skills, for example. I still did whole class instruction when tackling skills, strategies and approaches to comprehension. But when it came to selecting practice tasks for students to tackle, it is easy enough to have a box full of differentiated tasks, colour-coded for reading ability. These can be used across age cohorts. When tackling language skills, I would direct those students struggling with concord, for example, towards exercises around this, and those needing more work with vocabulary towards these tasks. I kept a file with a page per student to record what tasks had been completed, and what needed further work. While not very game-like, this did mean that students were tackling mastery across parallel, overlapping, but differentiated paths. One can easily imagine overlaying game mechanics to create a more engaging experience. Students loved the individual attention they were getting. I was usually able to sit down with about a third of my class in any session and I used to assess work in front of them and give feedback and follow-up tasks at the same time. I have never believed in taking marking home with me!

As a Computer Skills teacher I have a gamified my syllabus completely in that all the tasks revolve around a narrative – see The Mobius Effect – Gamifying Your Classroom. But while these tasks allow for different speeds of progress they are not differentiated according to learning needs. This is partly because a computer skills syllabus does not really involve much work that is really complicated. There are only so many spreadsheet skills, for example. Something more complicated and nuanced, such as comprehension skills provides far more need for branching. Many students struggle with idiomatic expressions. There appears to be something of a generation gap between the authors of pieces used in comprehension passages, magazine or newspaper articles, and school-aged readers. But others may be misconstruing the connotations of words and therefore missing the purpose of the writing. Differentiated learning paths would greatly benefit students in this instance. But simply adding a games layer to your English classroom may seem forced and artificial. Simply awarding badges and posting leaderboards does not seem to me to be the answer either.

The idea of using peer mentorship and assessment using more experienced peers to be found in Personalisation By Pieces, however, seems to me to offer a real alternative. To take our example of Comprehension Skills, having a student who is struggling with idiomatic language usage receive help and have a task based on idioms assessed by someone who has recently “passed” a unit of work based on idioms would deliver a useful and authentic context for games-like level based achievement. This could be achieved across grades and ages using online piece submission platforms such as Google Classroom or Microsoft Teams for Education. Analog work could be scanned for submission purposes if need be. This would provide a paper trail and record of what was covered.





Learn to Code Online – Making Waves with Code Combat

I do not usually review any platforms or tools which come with a cost, but Code Combat offers a free Introductory Unit which can be used as a stand-alone unit of work so I will set my scruples aside! My school has purchased a Code Combat license which includes 11 Units of work in either Python or JavaScript with some web development units using HTML and CSS. The platform has students create games by typing in code, and progressing from one level to another once they have completed a previous level. Each unit varies in length from about an hour to complete to several hours of work. The units introduce basic programming concepts such as For loops, While loops, nested loops and so on. Concepts are introduced incrementally and learning can be very rapid. I use it for my grade 8 & 9 Computer Skills classes. A solid diet of Code Combat is not a very good idea, so I intersperse it through the year with applications and information literacy assignments.

The platform is generally excellent, but there are a few issues which need to be taken into account when implementing it as a coding platform. You will note that I am not considering the wider question of whether to offer coding to all students. To my mind it is crucial that all students get some exposure to coding, not necessarily because everyone will be coding in their jobs, but because I believe everyone needs an understanding of how coding works, and because I think it helps develop problem solving skills generally! The command line interface, rather than the more usual drag and drop “Scratch” style interface helps develop skills of accuracy and precision.

The issue that I want to address is how the platform can be used pedagogically, because I believe it cannot simply be used on its own. The teacher cannot simply point students in the direction of the platform and walk away! I want to draw on Semantic Wave theory, which I have discussed in a YouTube video, to demonstrate what I mean. To recap, teaching and learning is crucially about the deconstruction and reconstruction of meaning (semantics). Teachers help students to unpack ideas, helping them understand complex or abstract ideas using metaphors, examples and everyday language so that they can understand it in their own terms. Teachers then help students to take these raw, more experiential, concrete or simple ideas and reformulate them in more academic understandings. An example would be when a teacher models the unpacking of a work of literature, exploring the themes and imagery of a Shakespearean play and  then scaffolding a student’s writing so that they can take incidents from the play and tease out the thematic concerns in a coherent literary essay. Knowledge is deconstructed and reconstructed.

This movement between abstract and complex and concrete and simple, and hopefully back again is described in the research literature as a semantic wave. Research into good practice in the classroom suggests that good teaching and learning requires a full range between abstract and concrete, complex and simple, and repeated waves over time. My own research interest lies in looking at what affordances technology may offer for meaning making practices in the classroom.

I have recently done an analysis of the lowering or strengthening of semantic gravity and density in one of the Code Combat units which taught web design skills (HTML and CSS). What emerged was a pattern not too unfamiliar in the classroom with traditional face-to-face instruction. The software was very good at explaining concepts, introducing an idea, such as a mark-up tag, and giving concrete examples so that students could understand what an HTML tag looks like, and what it does. Across the thirteen levels of the unit there were repeated movements between abstract and concrete as the software unpacked each of the concepts involved. Very little opportunity was given for students to explore the examples and try to reconstruct knowledge by, for example, creating novel tags. Only in the final two lessons was there any emphasis on encouraging students to build knowledge themselves.

This type of semantic wave, a movement from abstract (weak semantic gravity) to concrete (strong semantic gravity) is very common in the classroom. It is termed a “down escalator”. Down escalators are essential, and problematic only if they form the major part of the diet and are seldom accompanied by any upward movement of the wave. In other words most of the class is simply explanation, with very little opportunity for students to explore their own understandings and construct knowledge in their own voice.

This happens more often than we would like to admit in classrooms, but with digital platforms it is even more common. In fact this unit of work offers quite a decent nod at constructivist pedagogies with a fairly open ended final set of units in which the student is invited to use the knowledge they have gained to create their own web pages. When students construct knowledge, sound educational practice is to carefully scaffold this to help students draw valid conclusions. Experienced teachers are skilled at doing this, but educational software is not. Perhaps developments in Artificial Intelligence will render it more effective, but currently machines do not respond to what students are doing with much insight or facility. This makes the Instructional Design absolutely vital. If all the software does is help explain concepts to students, but never give them an opportunity to use that knowledge to reconstruct it in their own understandings and voice, that knowledge will never be internalized. Machines are ill-suited to this task. In this Code Combat unit of work the Instructional design does in fact give some opportunity to take knowledge of one tag, for example, and try it with another, or see what happens when the properties of tags are changed. There are in fact partial upward movements of the wave. part of the reason I chose Code Combat as a platform was that it does a reasonable job of explaining and giving an opportunity to practice skills, but it is clearly not enough.

In order to provide more scaffolding I had two choices. the first was to ensure that I was able to jump from student to student as they worked on the units, helping mediate the content to ensure greater opportunities for exploration. This might be practical on an individual basis, but almost impossible with a class of thirty as I had. I was also reluctant to become the expert, solving everyone’s problems. That way nobody except myself would learn anything! Debugging student code is also very time consuming, and in a class of thirty would give me, say one minute with each student, always assuming I could help spot any problems in that time!

The second option was to encourage students to work in pairs and provide peer and teacher mentoring. The aim of this was to ensure that students always had someone else present with whom to discuss what they were learning, help overcome problems when students got stuck, to try out ideas and compare code – “why does yours work and mine doesn’t?” This provides students with opportunities to explain to others why their code seems to work, and what their thinking was, and helps, I believe, build a better understanding over time. It also helps students to express their ideas about what they are doing and weakens the semantic gravity by getting them to abstract their thoughts out. Indeed when I do help a student what I try to do is ask them what they are trying to do rather than trying to fix the issue myself.

Peer mentoring and collaboration is a powerful way to bridge the gap between the instructional power of e-learning software, and its somewhat less potent ability to foster constructivist learning practice.





Big Data in Education – Big Brother!

The recent shenanigans surrounding Cambridge Analytica and Facebook reveals reasons why we should be very wary of Big Data in education. The argument is often advanced that computerization of the classroom will allow for the collection of large amounts of data on a student’s progress and for increased personalization and more effective pedagogical approaches to be adopted. Teachers are limited and when asked to teach large classes especially, are often unable to give the kind of individual attention we would like. This idea harks back to the teaching machines beloved of Behaviourist psychology and the dream that programmed learning paths could be built into instructional design in such a way as to deliver the right content at the right time for each individual, making learning much more efficient. I have two problems with this notion. Firstly it ignores the crucial understanding of learning as a social construct, reducing it to a solitary interaction between student and teacher (machine). And secondly it dovetails so neatly with the great push for Taylorist efficiency and the erosion of privacy as to raise alarm bells around our civil liberties. If they can gather so much data about us when we are young and in school, how on earth will they use it later when a student has graduated? Will that data be destroyed or sold on for profit? Will the data belong to the student, the school or the educational publishers producing the software?

At the risk of sounding like a Conspiracy Theorist, I do believe that it is incumbant on us as teachers to do everything in our power to protect the data of our students, especially such sensitive data as intimate knowledge of learning patterns and behaviours! If I know how you learn, I have great insight into how to control your behaviour, what shoes you will buy, or how you will vote!

As important as this point is, I do not want to dwell on it. Learning is not individual, It is social, as Vygotsky pointed out. We learn first socially and then internalize that knowledge individually. The distance between the two, Vygotsky termed the Proximal Zone of Development. We need more experienced others to show us not only how to do things or to pass on knowledge, but also to show us what is knowable. What we believe it is desirable to know is also socially constructed. I learn to do things first with the help, guidance and instruction of others, and then, after a while, am able to do it myself. Can machines fulfil the role of the more experienced other? In some ways, yes. Pressey’s testing machines from the 1920s or Skinner’s teaching machines from the 1950s demonstrated that programmed learning could be used with some degree of success. However, these machines, and the computer programs that replaced them have not been dubbed drill and kill for nothing! While there is some research evidence that they were successful for weaker students, their interface and relentless diet of machine delivered question and answer killed all motivation and they lost favour as the fortunes of Behaviourism waned.

As Constructivist learning theories gained traction, learning machines were ditched in favour of new theories about how machines could be used in the classroom. Seymour Papert’s influential Constructionism and approaches such as Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow came into vogue. Computers were to be used by students to author content and as tools for active learning. But beyond this, with the advent of the Internet, computers came to be seen as above all else tools for communication and collaboration, well suited for affording contact between students. Google docs, with its capacity to allow multiple users to author a single document simultaneously unlocked the power of collaboration. Skype could bring other students from across the globe into a classroom, or allow videos to be exchanged across continents. These are hugely engaging uses, and if used properly, can have enormous educational benefits. But they depend on being almost invisible. When you are collaborating in a Google hangout or a Google doc you are not concerned about the technology, you are engaging with other people’s minds! Learning is social, meaning we learn by, with and from others.

The notion of the computer as a device that could track student progress and provide just the right input and feedback at just the right time never quite went away, however, and the growing capacity of computers to do this has led to a resurgence in the belief in personalized teaching machines. Many platforms allow student progress to be tracked and content unlocked depending on progress. Khan Academy, for example has such an interface, and programs such as MyMaths allow teachers to track progress on a dashboard. While this may seem innocuous and indeed beneficial, the drill and kill effect is often cited by students who resist, or try to subvert such programs when they are used in the classroom. These programs are sold in the name of personalization and with a Big Data tagline. The technology may improve, but at the moment these uses of technology are viewed by students as boring and alienating.

And if the technology improves, the Conspiracy Theorist in me starts to be afraid, really afraid!


Surfing the MOOC – eLearning in the High School and the Importance of Creating Semantic Waves!

MOOCs burst onto the Higher Education scene with an almost Messianic promise to disrupt and transform educational practice for the better, giving affordable access to millions excluded from tertiary education. While the most optimistic predictions were tempered with a sense of disappointment in high drop-out rates and lack of inclusivity, it is undoubtedly true that many who would never have been able to access quality educational content have been enabled to do so. In part too, the response to the #FeesMustFall protests in South Africa has been for Universities to rely more heavily on online content provision. There was even talk in some quarters of most First Year courses porting online! In America platforms such as Coursera have turned to franchising content to tertiary colleges, with lecturers assuming the role of tutors, helping mediate content for students.

While the focus has been on Universities with #FeesMustFall, our schooling system is also in a critical position, with the actual pass rate being masked by the high drop out rate, and with our position in World Literacy and Mathematics rankings resolutely failing to rise out of the basement! Clearly something needs to be done. There can be no substitute for quality teaching, but until there is a commitment to uplifting skills and teacher training, technology may offer a partial solution through greater quality online provision. This is no magic wand, however, and the investment should always be on training how teachers use the technology rather than the content or the kit itself. It can never be an argument for cost-cutting or deskilling! If you simply got a few master teachers to record content and streamed it into classrooms, nothing would be achieved. For learning to be facilitated you would need empowered and motivated teachers in every classroom re-designing and purposing that content for their own context and the needs of their own students. To argue anything else is to completely misunderstand what teaching and learning entails, and to ignore all the research findings!

Teaching & Learning is founded on the deconstruction and reconstruction of knowledge. A fruitful approach to analysing how meaning is constructed in the classroom is offered by Legitimation Code Theory, a framework based on the work of Basil Bernstein and Pierre Bourdieu. The architect of the framework is Karl Maton. One aspect of this approach is to look at semantic gravity (how abstract or concrete an idea is) and semantic density (how condensed, how simple or complex an idea is). If we chart the relative gravity or density of classroom interaction over time we can see semantic profiles, expressed as semantic waves.

Often what we see in the secondary school classroom is flat-lining. Either meaning remains at too general or abstract a level, ideas are not unpacked or explored, or the opposite extreme where ideas never move from a concrete prosaic level. What needs to happen for good teaching, and good learning, is a constant movement between the abstract and the concrete. Students need to have ideas unpacked, to understand concepts in their own more concrete idiom. Good teachers do this using metaphors, examples and everyday language to make concepts and academic language understandable. But students also need to be able to explore raw experience, raw data and tease ideas, themes and academic knowledge out of their own experiences.

This process takes many years and requires quality teaching and opportunities for quality guided, scaffolded learning. This process may be described as a series of semantic waves. My own research interest lies in the affordances that technology offers for the construction and deconstruction of knowledge in the classroom. I am still in the early stages of gathering data, but initial findings seem to suggest that technology can be quite good at assisting the movement between abstract and concrete, but needs a great deal of human intervention to facilitate the reverse movement of the wave. For example, students can readily benefit from watching a video on YouTube explaining how to do this or that! If they are motivated they will readily learn how to perform a series of dance moves or how to create back-lighting effects in 3D animation software. The video will painstakingly break down the movement, or the concept of back-lighting and show students exactly what they need to do. The video can be paused and rewound until the concept is grasped.

What is often found in classrooms, and in online instructional material is a similar series of movements from abstract to concrete. Ideas are being explained, and after explaining one, another is explored, and another and another, but students are not being given the opportunity to take these understandings and use these new understanding to reconstruct more abstract knowledge. Put another way teaching is going on, but very little learning. These half waves are called down-escalators. To achieve a better understanding of the concept students need to use their own experiences and go through a process of constructing knowledge in their own voice.

Technology can and does offer affordances for this reconstruction of knowledge. For example I saw a Science class the other day using simulation software to create electrical circuits on computers and immediately see the consequences of their actions. This use clearly assists students build up a better understanding of how electrical circuits work and allows them to begin to draw out a better understanding of the laws of electricity. However, in that class what I observed was a teacher constantly moving between students helping them use the software, and helping them draw the conclusions they needed to draw from what they were doing. If the students had been left alone very few of them would have derived much benefit from the exercise. They often got stuck and did not know what to do, and often drew incorrect conclusions and then couldn’t understand what the simulation was showing them.

All of this is a wordy way of pointing out what is obvious to most teachers, it is important to teach, and learning needs to be scaffolded carefully. Technology can help, but you need to adapt its use to your particular context and students. Plonking stuff online and hoping it leads to learning just doesn’t work!

The University MOOC model, with its Holy Trinity of the video lecture, the readings and the peer-assessed assignment just simply does not offer the level of scaffolding and mediation of content necessary in the secondary school. Some have suggested that the SPOC (Small Private Online Course) is the answer. This would allow for frequent live sessions in which teachers are able to support learning.

SPOCs and other online solutions could be used to achieve inter alia:

  • access to enrichment material to extend the regular syllabus, allowing topics to be explored in greater depth
  • access for subjects with too few students to support teachers in every school. For example Latin and other second languages or certain A-Level courses
  • access to remediation and extra support
  • overcoming social inequality through partnerships
  • home schooling
  • ameliorate teacher shortages
  • gap cover between school and university to upgrade necessary requirements
  • access to topics such as research skills, plagiarism & copyright protocols or career counselling, areas of the syllabus which are often cut due to pressure of time
  • talks and mentoring from global experts

SPOCs and other online programmes within secondary schools are beginning to be implemented and researched, and I believe will increasingly become a feature of the educational landscape. Teachers need to begin experimenting and finding out what works and doesn’t work. I believe they represent the wave of the future and a sphere that schools need to actively explore and gain capacity in. They will not replace schools, but they add an extra tool in the tool-box. I believe that if schools do not begin this exploration we may well face a wave of top-down impositions of MOOC-like solutions, cheap implementations which ignore the pedagogical realities of the classroom, but are appealing to politicians and administrators as cost-cutting measures and a way of de-skilling the teaching profession! If we do not have best-practice models to counter this argument we will have cheap and nasty solutions imposed on us.


Maton, K. (2013) Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-buildingLinguistics and Education, 24(1): 8-22.

Maton, K. 2014. Knowledge and Knowers towards a realist sociology of education. London and New York: Routledge.


The Möbius Effect – Gamifying Your Classroom!

One of my teaching hats is as a teacher of computer skills, which can be very dry. Students do need to learn how to use word-processors and spreadsheets, databases and photo editors, web editors and animation applications, but a solid diet of skills can become something of a tick list! A few years ago I decided to gamify the computer skills syllabus, not so much with the classic gamification triad of points, badges and leaderboards (PBL), but with a strategy designed to maximise a games narrative. Something more like a role play game or alternate reality game. I believe that what games narratives do well in education is establish a motivating reason to put in work.

So I invented a framing story about a fictional Professor of astrophysics who has uncovered a bug in the Mathematics of time (The Möbius Effect) which she believes originates in a kind of computer virus placed in the fabric of space-time by some vast super-intelligence! This bug threatens the end of life as we know it! The Professor is being ignored by the White House, labelled a cook-ball conspiracy theorist, and urgently needs help to save the Multi-verse! This help is offered in the form of the production of various kinds of digital documents from Flyers and Newsletters to spreadsheets which can calculate the gravity on different planets or convert Celsius to Fahrenheit or databases to search for planets capable of supporting life! Any kind of digital document can be worked into the game format from fixing the professor’s citations and bibliography to evaluating fake websites or creating a website or Flash animation.

It also involves the cracking of coded messages and solving riddles and puzzles, which seems to add just the right note of motivation to submit work. I had one student ask me the other day if this was a game! “I’m confused,” she said!

The game had to satisfy the demand for assessment and syllabus completion, however. So I decided to use the points and badges part of PBL. Marks are there, but hidden behind Level Completion. Each level in the game translates into points, ie. marks! Completion is also rewarded with a badge. So completion of 50% of the levels results in a grade of 50%, full completion means 100%, and so on.

Students are able to work at their own pace and some quickly finish levels and can work on riddles or codes, which they unlock as a reward for completion. Others take longer but still complete far more work than previously. I use Google Classroom as a platform, and each Task is set up as an assignment. This allows me to easily record all progress and attach any scaffolding materials such as videos showing how to do this or that (the sort of things I demonstrate in class).


I think this kind of gamification could be used for any kind of classroom with some modification. To my mind what makes the game engaging is to treat it as an Alternate Reality Game and to step in and add clues or puzzles if the pace is slowing, and drop clues if it is proving too difficult. Embedding clues in music videos can be fun too!


Integrating Thinking & IT

There is a common assumption that IT somehow leads to better thinking. The assumption behind this is that IT promotes more independent thinking, more self-directed learning and greater opportunity for promoting critical thinking. I am not saying that this is not the case, but I do think that it is only the case if we as teachers consciously and deliberately find ways of making it so.

Sans obstacles, gliding ahead with personalized learning.

GUEST COLUMN | by Maurice de Hond

CREDIT Steve Jobs School NetherlandsTwo points stood out at the recent ASU/GSV edtech summit in San Diego: there were three times more visitors than two years ago in Scottsdale, Ariz., and the number of new businesses and products in the field of edtech has now grown strong. The majority of those companies and products focus on personalizing education, responding to the level and possibilities of the pupil.

So long as your students are organized into age-based groups as has always been done, the best technology will deliver little return with respect to a personalized approach. It’s like trying to ice skate on grass.

I’ve been active in this field since 2012, like Max Ventilla of AltSchool. I got involved because I have a young child who started using an iPhone and iPad at a very early age. However, when…

View original post 620 more words

%d bloggers like this: