Listen up – audio a massive boost for learning

My sons find it amusing that my iPod Nano has no music but around 500 podcasts, many from In Our Time on Philosophy, History, Religion and Science. Why? Because I travel a lot and like to keep myself stimulated on trains, planes and in other non-places. Like reading, I find the focus on one medium useful, especially for knowledge and reason.  So here’s some reflections on my audio experience.

1. Doubles productivity

Paul Maharg has developed some superb online, simulation tools for lawyers but one thing in his toolset did catch my eye. He has a ‘fastalk’ button for listening to audio/video faster than normal speed. This may sound trivial but it’s not. My iPod Nano also has a x2 button that allows you to listen at twice natural speed. As we read at about twice the speed we speak, this means that I can listen at reading speed. In terms of productivity, I HALVE talking time. Let’s apply that rule to lectures. If I listened to recorded lectures at twice the speed, I’d be doubling my productivity. Alternatively, I could listen to the lecture twice in the same time, which will dramatically increase retention through reinforcement. Either way there’s an enormous boost in productivity. Note that one study saw no significant difference in retention at double and even triple speed. Indeed, listening skills seemed to improve.

2. Review button

The ‘replay last thirty seconds’ button is also a godsend. If you miss a word, phrase, number or simply want to hear the point again, it’s easy. How often do students ask real lecturers to repeat something they hadn’t caught or understood? This instant review button is made for learning (quite aprat from pause, return to point from which you left, rewind and fast forward).

3. Note taking easier & better

I also take notes when listening to these podcasts. With just earphones and an iPod, my arms are free. It allows me to focus on the screen while I type or page when I write. If I’m looking at a lecturer this, as anyone who has tried to take notes in a live lecture knows, is difficult. And as we know that good note taking increases retention by 20-30%, there’s another productivity boost. Indeed, I find that the spare cognitive capacity, created by not having a live lecturer, allows me to write notes well, and in my own words, which is even more useful.

4. Avoids visual distraction

So is there any real reason to video the lecturer? I think not. Khan stays out of his videos as does Thrun in his Stanford content. They both state that this is a deliberate move and I’m glad. I don’t need to see their face to understand what they’re saying. For knowledge and reason that is primarily semantic, I find the purity of audio, like text in reading, ideal. Images and video are, if anything, a distraction. In terms of retention this type of knowledge is stored in semantic, not episodic, memory. That’s not to say that imagery doesn’t help in elaboration. However, the best form of elaboration for this type of knowledge is that produced by the imagination.

5. Imagination kicks in

When it comes to semantic memory, and knowledge of this type, freeing my working memory from ‘looking’ at a lecturer, also allows my imagination to kick in. This brings my own existing knowledge and thoughts to the act of learning, which I have no doubt increases elaboration and therefore retention and recall.

6. Audio easy to record & distribute

Audio is, of course, cheap and easy to record. Unlike video, you don’t have to worry about lighting and movement. Video files are many times larger than audio files, therefore easier and cheaper to store and distribute, especially on mobile media. Just kick that stuff out through iTunes and you’re up and running.

7. Audio convenient on the move

Given the ease of production and distribution, it’s an ideal form of mobile learning. All you need is a mobile or iPod and earphones. My Nano is literally as small as a watch (indeed it can be worn as a watch), weighs just a few ounces and can be attached to my lapel.

Conclusion

So audio can double productivity at double speed (or listen to twice) compared to actual lectures, can be reviewed, allows productive and meaningful note taking, eliminates visual distraction, stimulates the internal imagination and therefore retention, is easy to record, easy to distribute and perfect for mobile learning. That’s before we even get to the 24/7 access. On productivity, my claim that this approach 'doubles' productivity applies to the mathematically certain fact that you save half the time. That doesn't mean you've been twice as productive in retention. Here, however, the fact that you can take notes gives an evidence-based boost of 20-30%. That combined with the use of your imagination to elaborate the learning and listening to it twice, boosts retention even further, as does the absence of visual distraction. The claim of 100% increase in retention, is therefore, approximate but credible.

7 good reasons for slashing University PGCE teacher training courses

I don’t often agree with current Government policy on education but on this one they’re heading in the right direction. I’d go a lot further. There’s many reasons for closing down hundreds of these PGCE courses.

1. Too small and costly

Some courses have as few as 10 students. To be precise there are currently 330 courses with 10 or fewer students. This makes them madly expensive to staff and resource. Even worse, these courses are often in close proximity to each other.

2. Supply outstripping demand

Demographically we need less teachers as pupil numbers are falling. There’s simply not enough jobs to go round.

3. Irrelevance

The drift towards ‘University-led’ courses had loaded these courses up with irrelevant theory that has no real bearing on the practice of teaching. A good example is Abraham Maslow, a staple in teacher training, yet of no use to anyone in terms of what they’re actually asked to do in schools.

4. Delivered via lectures!

To deliver teacher training through lectures is pedagogically pathetic. Good practice is not taught through bad practice. It’s like teaching medicine using blood letting.

5. Third rate research

The only defense UCET (Universities Council for the Education of Teachers) and other trade associations like NATE (National Association for the Teaching of English) have come up with is the loss of expertise and research. For me this loss is a plus. There’s far too much third rate research in education.

6.  Outdated

Teacher training almost completely ignores the radical shifts in technology and pedagogy, producing teachers who are ill-equipped to deal with technology in learning. These courses lock young teachers into fossilised theory and practice.

7. Performance-based assessment

There’s no better place to assess teachers than in real schools where they really are judged on performance. Far too many teachers have gone through training in the past only to find themselves unsuited to teaching in practice. The drop-out rates are unacceptably high.

Conclusion

The Graduate Teaching Programme and other fastrack programmes have clearly proven their worth. It’s time to recognise that this is a vocational qualification that could do with a lot less theory and more practice.

Professor Alison Wolf – a wolf in wolf’s clothing!

I gave a talk to over 200 experts in vocational education this week and got a round of applause a few minutes in because I had a go at Professor Alison Wolf, Gove’s lapdog, for devaluing 3100 vocational courses in schools  culling them to only 70 accepted courses. How could the person responsible for a recent report that called for parity between academic and vocational learning be responsible for this unprecedented attack on the very thing she said she supported? It’s simple, she’s a hired idealogue, hand-picked by Gove to further his attack on state education. Gove’s a politician who acts on whim, Wolf has a long track record in right-wing stances on education.

Even hard-nosed, free-market CEOs were astonished at the stupidity of the move. Rather than readjust the parity between GCSEs and these qualifications, which would have been easy, he attacked and destroyed the very credibility of vocational education in schools, creating an imbalance that will take decades to reverse. They took a scythe to qualifications that people have worked for years to develop, in particular the Diploma in Engineering, developed with serious employers such as Siemens, Boeing, Toyota, Rolls Royce, Sony and JCB - so much for employer recognition.

What the Wolves and Goves don’t really understand is the degree to which young people are often reignited in education by doing something they see as relevant. More than this, many go on to become entrepreneurs, as they start their own businesses. The Wolves and Goves have no real understanding of entrepreneurship. In a time of riots, financial crises, recession, soaring unemployment, especially among the young and suspicion about the cost and relevance of Higher Education, surely we could have held the Wolf from the door by protecting our progress on vocational education? How do you think the young people doing these qualifications feel when they hear people on television and in the press describe their qualifications as “Micky Mouse” or “dead-end” qualifications. It’s shameful.

Thrown to the Wolves

Professor Wolf is, of course, an ideologue. What’s more the she-Wolf gave birth to another she-Wolf, who is even more of an ideologue – Rachel Wolf. Rachel has no academic background in education, had barely finished as an advisor, first to Boris Johnson then Michael Gove, when at the tender age of 25, she suddenly received from Gove, a cool half million of funding. This was for a charity she had started just a year earlier, called the New Schools Network, advising on ‘free-schools’. There was, of course, no tender - clearly an inside job. Let’s be clear here - this was a lobbying organisation that received direct government funds to advise on educational policy. I should add that this ‘charity’ refuses to name its other benefactors. I wonder why? Could they include some private sector interests in school networks? And yes, you’ve guessed it, there’s a daddy Wolf. Martin Wolf, the well-connected, right-wing chief economics columnist for the Financial Times. This is an Oxbridge family wildly removed from the real world of vocational employment. It would seem that the fate of millions of young people has been thrown to the Wolves.

The real problem

Alison Wolf confused cause and effect. The real cause of the problem is the league tables. Make rankings your goal and people will find a way of climbing them, even if it to the detriment of the students and the value of qualifications. Academics do it all the time. The so-called Times Universities rankings is only a reflection of successful research applications and says nothing about teaching (the supposed 30% for teaching has no direct measurement of teaching and uses irrelevant proxies).  A curious side-effect of this cull is to show that Academies will plummet in the league tables, as last year they had only 7% of students achieve the Ebacc, against 13% for comprehensives. Their own flagships are being thrown to the wolves.

The real solution

The solution was to establish parity or equivalence, not eliminate one side of the equation altogether. If we had taken the advice of Tomlinson all those years ago we would have true parity and not this Middle England, Downton Abbey attitude towards vocational education as ‘trade’, something to be seen as ‘second-best’ even despised as a lower-class pursuit. Sheer snobbery is at the root of this problem.

We now find ourselves in the truly absurd position, when the country is facing massive problems with growth and employment, of valuing Latin above ALL vocational qualifications. For me, the defence of Latin as a worthwhile core subject is the touchstone for snobbery and the sheer refusal to accept research findings. I used to think that education was stuck in the 19^th century, I never imagined, that a decade into the 21^st century, we’d be taking things back to the 1^st century BC!

To be frank, we’re sitting on a social time bomb and rather than showing leadership, a narrow cabal of academics, journalists and politicians, are shortening the fuse.

M-learning – be careful – a 7 point primer

Warning – market’s a mess

Anyone who says cross-platform, m-learning content development and delivery is easy, is lying. A wander round the Learning Technologies exhibition induced a rash of promises that were at best economical with the truth. Mobile leaning vendors seem addicted to the word ‘YES’ in answer to any question. It ain’t that simple. Walk into any mobile shop, such as Carphone Warehouse and witness a fragmented market. Latency, bandwidth, screen size, methods of display, methods of input and the lack of universally adopted or agreed standards – that’s your technical environment. A quick glance will reveal iOS, Android, BlackBerry, Windows Phone, Symbian and Palm. It’s all a bit of a mess. So be careful about what’s phones are promised.

Learning limits

Early research on mobile learning showed something that is conveniently ignored by mobile learning evangelists. Attention and retention may be seriously affected by small screen size. Few watch movies, read entire e-books or perform long pieces of linear learning on their mobiles.More worrying is research by Nass & Reeves that shows that retention falls rapidly with screen size. This pushes m-learning towards performance support, recording performance and collaborative learning, rather than courses. So be careful about what type of learning you want to deliver.

Technical complexities

Most serious developers use a tool that creates core code then cross-compiles to create native apps across a range of platforms. This is not easy as these things are difficult to write but the apps will be fast. A variation is to use a VM (Virtual Machine) which may be a bit slower but gives you control and flexibility. Or, more commonly, they will create web applications as browsers increasingly cope with worldwide standards such as HTML 5, Javascript and CSS 3. So be sure that you understand the means of mobile production as it will affect speed and options.

Content complexity

How complex will your content be? The three letter word ‘app’ covers everything from a simple text feed to complex geo-location, camera integrated applications with serious internal logic, interactivity, games and media manipulation. This is not easy in web apps, so be clear about the exact functionality of the apps you want to deliver. You may end up with some very limited options.

Managing through LMS/VLE

You have to consider whether you want integration with your LMS/VLE such as Moodle, Totara or Blackboard? M-learning isolated from your LMS/VLE may be difficult to justify and participation in the LMS/VLE functionality may be desirable. Do you want SCORM compliance?

Performance portal

Do you want the device to control and record performance in more ‘learn by doing’ or vocational applications? This evidence may need to be fed into an e-portfolio. Do you want to use the camera or GPS as part of the learning experience?

Collaborative learning

Is collaborative learning required? Do you want to integrate social media into your app? Or does the device already do this through their normal phone activity?

Conclusion

Take these seven issues seriously and you’re in a position to make a serious decision about whether you want to enter the m-learning market. Don’t get me wrong, I think this is now happening and would encourage participation. But you have to think context as well as content. Mobile learning may be more suited to some target audiences than others, younger not older, mobile not static, vocational not academic. Go into this with your eyes wide open or mobile will simply mean they take your money and run.

Lectures selling students short: evidence from 'Science'

Academics will go to any length to defend the lecture (see twitter feed on my Don't lecture me! talk). No matter how much evidence there is to show that it is poor pedagogic practice, they resist the change. Even worse are those on the technology side in HE who ignore the arguments. They’re like those creationist scientists who have to reconcile empirical evidence with blind faith. In any case, here’s another study (yawn) that proves the obvious – lectures are selling students short.

Lectures v research-based instruction

In this study ‘Improved Learning in a Large-enrollment Physics Class’ by Deslauriers, Schelew & Wieman, from the University of British Columbia, lectures were compared with research-based instruction. The study was well designed with two large groups (n=267 n=271), one taught using an “experienced, highly-trained instructor” who taught using lectures, the other by a “trained but inexperienced instructor” using research-based instruction, based on cognitive science. Both taught an undergraduate physics course on electromagnetic waves with clearly identified learning objectives.

Higher attention, attendance & attainment

The results were astounding. Not only higher engagement and increased student attendance in the non-lecture group but a massive difference in attainment. To be precise, the ‘lectured’ group scored 41% on the test, the ‘interactive’ group 74%. Pretty strong medicine.

Conclusion

The excuse is HE that ‘we’ve always done it this way’ but if other areas of human endeavour were to take this attitude "in medicine we would still be bloodletting, in physics we would be trying to reach the moon with very large rubber bands" says Wieman. The evidence is overwhelming from Bligh to Mazur – lectures don’t work. So let’s cut to the quick here, we have an entire profession ‘lecturers’ whose job title and practice are deeply flawed. Show me a Professor of Education, especially a Professor of E-learning, who lectures, and I’ll show you a hypocrite who doesn’t read the research.

7 reasons why Facebook is front runner in social media learning

There’s a lot of talk about social media in learning but where’s the action? Well, something’s happening in social media and learning, and Facebook is looking like a front runner. I first noticed this through the work of Millie Watts at Richard Huish College (see previous post) and Dr Ray Blunco sums it up in his Social Media in HE’ blog, when he says that the studies he’s run and participated in show that “students will overwhelmingly use Facebook”. Twitter seems to be used less and therefore less relevant and people don’t normally hang out in formal discussion groups in Ning! This has been reinforced by chats with the Facebook folks, who seem to have some serious plans in this area.

1. Why Facebook? They’re all there.

Interestingly, students argue that they prefer Facebook in learning because they’re already there and it’s easy to use. Almost all students are on Facebook and they’re there all of the time receiving updates all day long, so you can tap into their daily flow and make learning a part of their life, not just a chore through talks, tasks and tests. In fact, many report that they already, informally, use Facebook to ask each other questions, make enquiries about assignments and generally catch –up. So it makes sense to amplify that behaviour.

2. Learning automatically mobile

The fact that students get updates on their mobiles, is of course, an obvious advantage. Learning through Facebook, means for most, automatically engaging in mobile learning. This is a big leap forward, as learners spend a lot of wasted time being on the move – walking to educational institutions, hanging around waiting and so on.

3. Facebook - Groups

Let’s dispel the first myth. You don’t have to be ‘friends’ with your students, or respond to their ‘friend’ requests. You simply become a participant in a separate group. So think Facebook groups (not Facebook pages). A formal Facebook group is a private, closed space where you can share, poll, ask questions, chat, share documents, share images and so on. No one else sees the posts. Of course, you also receive notifications of group updates.

4. Tools (apps)

In addition to the group dynamics, there’s a rack of practical tools learners can use, as they can be interested into Facebook, including: Blogger (do teacher and student blogs), Slideshare (share slides), YouTube (show videos), Flickr (share images), CITEME (citation tool that finds and formats citations absolutely brilliant) and so on. We can also expect to see a rack of apps appearing that will accelerate this process.  ‘Appsfor good’ is a charity that runs courses for students in building apps (check them out). This is relevant, entrepreneurial and way beyond what the normal dull ICT curriculum teaches.

5. Facebook for educators

A useful starting point is ‘Facebook for educators’, a well written introduction which explains the basics. It has a useful list of the 'Ways Educators Can Use Facebook':

Help develop and follow your school’s policy about Facebook. 
 Encourage students to follow Facebook’s guidelines. 
Stay up to date about safety and privacy settings on Facebook.
Promote good citizenship in the digital world. 
Use Facebook’s pages and groups features to communicate with students and parents.
Embrace the digital, social, mobile, and “always-on” learning styles of 21st Century students.
Use Facebook as a professional development resource.


6. Civil use of social media
The bottom line is that world class institutions, like Stanford, have Facebook policies and encourage its use on campus. In any case using Facebook in schools, colleges, Universities and workplaces allows us to get the message across about the safe use of the internet, how to report problems, understand privacy settings, being civil, how to deal with cyberbullying etc. Using Facebook kills two birds with one stone – the medium is the message, so use the medium to teach the safe and sensible message.

7. Facebook as professional development

Devote a portion of your next INSET/training day to setting up a Facebook teachers/lecturers/trainers group to share professional knowledge. Surely there’s no better way to learn about the use of social media in learning than to simply get on and use it!

Lastly a shout for some of the good folk who are working hard to bring you advice, examples and so from the world of social media and learning, like Jane Hart, Jane Bozarth and many others.

Why m-learning changed my life

I’m a mobile learner. In fact, I’d say that of all the learning experiences in my life, m-learning has been the most productive. How so? Learning is a habit (see previous post)and I’ve habitually learnt on the move, largely in what Marc Auge calls ‘non-places’ – trains, planes, automobiles, buses, hotels, airports, stations. I’m never without a book, magazine or mobile device for learning. It’s been boosted recently by my new iPOD 6.0, which is about the size of a watch (indeed it can be worn as a watch) which contains 400+ podcasts. M-learning has become my dominant form of informal learning.

Young people not driving

Isn’t it interesting that, according to the University of Michigan, the number of US 17 year olds with a driving licence has fallen from 69% in 1983 to 50% in 2011? Among the several explanations for this, is the rise of the internet. The explosion of communication through texting, IM, BBM, chat, Facebook and email, has lessened the need for physical contact. Indeed, driving prevents you from being in the flow, as you can’t be online (legally) when you drive. Young people also choose to spend their money on small, electronic shiny devices, like smartphones, rather than large, hugely expensive, shiny, mechanical cars, which they may see as environmentally unsound. On top of this costs have soared, especially for fuel and insurance.

Non-driver

This caught my attention as I’ve never driven a car in my life. Don’t get me wrong it’s been more happenstance than moral stance. I’ve lived in cities such as Edinburgh, London and now Brighton, where a car is just not that useful. I’ve never really been stuck, in terms of getting anywhere, with just two exceptions; when I was a student on a campus University in the US and when I worked in Los Angeles. Other than that, my familiarity with public transport, has got me to some pretty obscure places around the world.

Learning time

By luck this has literally given me years of time to read and learn in the isolated and comfortable surroundings of buses, trains and planes. I actually look forward to travel, as I know I’ll be able to read and think, even write in peace (writing this now on a 6.5 hr flight from Middle East). Being locked away, uninterrupted in a comfortable environment is exactly what I need in terms of attention and reflection. I calculate that over the last 30 years,  of not driving, I’ve given myself about 20 days a year study time, totalling 600 days, so I’m heading towards a couple of years of continuous learning.

Non-places

It was the French anthropologist Marc Auge in his book Non-Places, who pointed out that many of us, especially heavy users of public transport, spend considerable amounts of time in railway stations, airports, hotels and other neutral, non-spaces, in transit to somewhere else. The good news is that these places have become havens for learning. I stock up on books, read in the lounge, browse magazines, buy newspapers, and generally see these places as opportunities for reading and refection. Witness the rise of airport bookshops and the commonplace appearance of a Kindle or laptop on trains and aeroplanes.

Conclusion

If you redefine m-learning, as learning on the move and get away from the idea that it’s just content delivered via mobiles, it becomes an important part of the learning landscape. So buy a Kindle, iPOD, notepad or load up your phone with content. Or stick to books. The important thing is to get into the habit of learning on the move and see non-places as learning spaces.