MFD – most frustrating device? September 7, 2013Posted by IaninSheffield in Musings, Technology.
Tags: learning, learning theory
1 comment so far
During the summer break we replaced a number of elderly and inefficient photocopiers and a couple of printers with MFDs (multifunction devices). Most were colour, some mono, but all print, copy and scan. In one more attempt to cut down wastage, we elected to include integrated ‘pull’ functionality; this means that nothing emerges from the device until the sender goes to the machine and ‘pulls’ down their job(s) from a print queue. Hopefully this will reduce the quantity of printing sent to printers/copiers which is never collected. The upshot is of course that in order to ‘release’ your job from the pint queue, you have to authenticate yourself in some way. We could have elected to have swipe cards (problems likely to occur due to loss), PIN authentication (yet one more piece of data to remember), but settled on active directory integration, meaning people just have to enter the username and password they normally would to do log onto a computer or into our network remotely. This is done on a touchscreen interface on the device itself, the screen being about three times the size of a normal smartphone. Because there is a single queue for all devices, if someone goes to pick up their printing from a device which is busy, they can simply switch to another MFD and pick up their job there.
A change in one’s working practices will inevitably require a degree of adjustment, particularly when there’s a new step (authentication) in something as routine as photocopying. Delays in the initial configuration and setup have meant the launch has been less smooth than we would have liked, however observing the way that people approach this new challenge has been rather interesting. Essentially there are two groups of users:
As one would expect, there is a range of confidence and capability across the groups, from those requiring a high level of support through to those who just jump straight in and give it a go. What has been fascinating though is the different way adults and younger people approach their first attempt. The confident in both groups seemed to just get stuck in and start pressing buttons until they made what they wanted to achieve happen. It was at the other end of the spectrum where the differences in the two groups started to emerge. Requests I’ve had from staff ranged from “Is there a set of instructions I can have?” through “Can you show me what to do?” to “Can you help me get started?” Requests I’ve had from students – nil! That’s not say they always succeeded in what they were doing, but not one asked for assistance up front. Even the least confident ones approached the MFD, looked at the touchscreen, then made an attempt, even if somewhat hesitantly.
It’s interesting to speculate why the differences and whether they are truly generational? There have always been those who, having unboxed some new appliance will plug it in, switch it on and get started, whilst other will need to read the instructions long before the appliance has left its packaging. Perhaps it’s related to one’s preferred approach to learning? Are those who need the instruction manual or guided support tending towards a instructivist, procedural approach where they follow a sequence of provided steps, achieve a successful outcome, then repeat the same steps for continued success? And are the others learning constructively by exploring, observing, evaluating the outcomes, then adjusting their actions accordingly?
But what happens when their job fails to come out the printer?
What does each do next? What are the consequences of undertaking a few cycles of the feedback loop? Will the recipe book people repeat the same steps in their manual, perhaps more carefully, assuming they’ve made a mistake … or the MFD isn’t working. Will the explorers try out different options, different settings? Might those in each group, having experienced a failed strategy, revert to the tactics employed by those in the other group?
Who would have thought a new set of printers could have got me thinking about learning? Maybe there’s a research project right there … how do people adapt and learn when faced with new circumstances and what characteristics ought we to be nurturing to help students face those challenges? Perhaps we need to change the printers more regularly 😉
On the level? September 15, 2012Posted by IaninSheffield in CPD, research, Teaching Idea.
Tags: Bloom's, learning theory
add a comment
I always enjoy reading posts on learning theories and concepts; it’s an area I’m still exploring whilst attempting to develop a deeper understanding. It was perhaps that then that attracted me for my first visit to the Pedagoo site:
Pedagoo is an attempt by a loose collection of educators in Scotland to move beyond the rhetoric and inevitable negativity that surrounds most new initiatives in education. If we stand for anything, it is making sure that those we teach are given the best preparation possible for the future.
A recent post on Pedagoo provided a useful introduction and ‘user guide’ to Bloom’s Taxonomy. A quick Internet search for Bloom’s Taxonomy will return a wealth of different sites and posts¹ describing and providing practical examples of Bloom’s in action. The one thing I’m still struggling to resolve though, is when we dig right down to practical illustrations of activities (or questions) indicative of a particular level within Bloom’s, have we oversimplified?
Giving exemplars of activities pitched at the different levels helps people address and reflect on their own approach perhaps with a view to enhancing or extending what they do. I’ve always wondered though whether siting (and citing!) an example of an activity at a particular level introduces challenges? Take producing a mindmap on the topic.’ Now this clearly involves some element of recall so is rightly at the ‘Remembering’ level, but I’d suggest we could perhaps make a case for that activity to require different levels of demand. Making a mindmap also requires the learner to ‘understand’ the information in a topic in order that their creation accurately summarises and structures the sub-topics within the overarching theme. Might we not also argue that this deconstruction of prior knowledge, then reconstruction or sense-making to create their own interpretation involves some elements of ‘analysis.’ And finally choosing an appropriate layout, thematic design, possibly introducing rich media (if using a digital app) could require a degree of ‘creativity?’
So maybe the value of Bloom’s is that it provides a framework for us to interrogate what we do and how we do it? Through the very act of analysing an activity and making a choice of an appropriate level, we better understand the appropriateness of the tasks we set our learners. Or as Gareth outlined in his post, the better our learners are able to interpret what they are doing and consequently challenge themselves with activities of higher demand. It’s perhaps less about what they’re doing now and more about what they’re going to do next.
¹There’s a really informative post by Donald Clark which provides a useful introduction to Bloom, his taxonomy and how it influenced education.
An innings to be proud of? April 12, 2011Posted by IaninSheffield in CPD, Musings.
Tags: learning, learning theory, PGCE, professional development, timeline
add a comment
I just wrote a post across on Posterous into which I embedded an interactive timeline showing some of the theories of learning developed during last century. (Would have done it here if WordPress had allowed the embedding)
As I constructed the timeline summary, I found myself reflecting on a couple of things. Firstly how little I knew about learning theories prior to the research my Masters lead me to. Sure I’d heard about a bit about Multiple Intelligences and knew some of Bloom’s Taxonomy, but very little else. The history of developments in learning theory was an area perhaps beyond the scope of an already jam-packed PGCE. Furthermore 40% of the learning theories included in the timeline have been developed since I began teaching in 1981 – my PGCE could hardly have helped me learn about what was yet to be uncovered!
Now during the whole of my career, I felt obliged to keep up to date with developments in Physics specifically (since that is what I taught) and Science more generally. Actually it was no obligation; I loved my subject (still do) and keeping up to date seemed just a natural part of being a Physics teacher. But what about the last bit? The ‘teacher’ bit? Why didn’t I keep up to date with developments in my chosen profession? Apart from those undertaking further study, does anyone? Shouldn’t there be a professional responsibility to keep up to date with developments in theory and pedagogy? And if so, how would we manage that?