Teachers’ learning environments and technology

1. Teachers’ learning environments and technology Petri Nokelainen School of Education

2. Old thinking on learning and environments • From ancient Greece compulsory education has been subject centered. • Learning, provided by professional teachers, has taken place in separate school buildings.

3. Old thinking on learning and environments • Subject centeredness does not model the reality of today’s kids ... yes, they have technology like smartphones and wireless networks enabling Internet and social media.

4. Old thinking on learning and environments • But they will also have real-life problems and challenges (e.g., health, economy, planet) relating to future. • These complex problems need to be addressed with multidisciplinary teams of people who can also work outside of their ”own” subject area. • Working trajectory with multiple careers instead of single career, no value for most of the knowledge learned from the school. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U)

5. (FNBE, 2011.)

6. 21st century pedagogy • Engages learners in productive disciplinary engagement with adequate resources and tools • Engages learners in the pursuit of authentic and complex problems • Creates spaces of learning which value learner agency, authority and accountability in meaning making and knowledge creation • Breaks boundaries between formal and informal learning contexts and between different communities of practice • Promotes schools grow into networked and collaborative learning communities (Kumpulainen, 2012.)

7. New thinking on learning and environments • How, then, about the school buildings? • We have recently seen many architectural innovations in school buildings – but they are still school buildings. • And in most cases there is no pedagogical planning behind the blueprints and structures.

8. New thinking on learning and environments • Who decides what a school should look like outside and inside (e.g., pedagogical interior design)? • The question is an important one as physical premises affect pedagogical designs/possibilities and thus have an affect on our learning.

9. New thinking on learning and environments • Some interesting research and projects: • School building and well-being (Nuikkinen, 2009). • InnoSchool (http://innoschool.tkk.fi ) • RYM - Indoor learning environments – Learning spaces: The role of activating methods and learning environments from the perspective of life time concept in service provision to children and youth.

10. (Nuikkinen, 2009, 94.)

11. (Sulonen, 2009.) Auditory Library Sports facilities Day care center Canteen School building Other schools Parks, sports field Urban spaces Markets Day care center Senior activities Community services Streets Commercial services

12. Auditory Library Sports facilities Day care center Canteen Healthy member of a society Schools Parks, sports field Urban spaces Markets Day care center Senior activities Community services Streets Commercial services

13. Auditory Library Sports facilities Day care center Canteen Healty member of a society 21st century pedagogy Schools Parks, sports field Urban spaces Markets Day care center Senior activities Community services Streets Commercial services

14. New thinking on learning and environments • Virtual learning environments – content management systems

15. (Hattie, 2009.) 1. Self-report grades 1.44 Self-evaluation of learning outcomes, do we need tests? 2. Piagetian programs (logical, concrete, formal) 1.28Learning materials are adjusted to meet developmental stages. 3. Formative evaluation 0.90Feedback to teacher. 4. Micro teaching (mini lessons) 0.88Teacher-student (even short) dialogues/sessions. 5. Acceleration 0.88More effective than enrichment. . . . 71. Computer assisted instruction 0.37 NEGATIVE EFFECTS STUDENT MATURITY TEACHER EFFECT POSITIVE EFFECTS -0.2 -0.1 0.00.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

16. New thinking on learning and environments • Social media learning • Blogging, micro-blogging (Twitter), collaborative calendaring, podcasting, RSS (Rich Site Summary) readers, collaborative mindmapping, photo sharing, screencast sharing, presentation sharing, social bookmarking (Diigo, Delicious), collaborative document editing (Google docs, Wikispaces, Etherpad), social networking (Facebook, LinkedIn), …

17. Technology Auditory Library Sports facilities Day care center Canteen Healthy member of a society 21st century pedagogy Schools Parks, sports field Urban spaces Markets Day care center Senior activities Community services Streets Commercial services

18. (Kumpulainen, 2012.)

19. Studio learning (technology-enhanced active learning) • MIT has shown with university level engineering students that studio learning easily scales up (at least) to classes of 100 students (http://web.mit.edu/edtech/casestudies/teal.html).

20. Entrepreneurial learning • Proacademy (Polytechnic) has carried out team learning for more than 10 years (http://www.proakatemia.fi/en).

21. Vocational skills competitions • Finland is active in both national (Taitaja9, Taitaja) and international (upper secondary level) vocational skills competitions (EuroSkills, WorldSkills). • Skills competitions as learning environments have been studied in the University of Tampere since 2006: • Modeling of Vocational Excellence (2006-2008) • Actualizing Vocational Excellence (2009-2011) • Pathways to Vocational Excellence (2011- ) (Nokelainen et al., 2012.)

23. Fiskarin malli – monialaisen oppimisympäristön kehittäminen

24. MoMath – matematiikkaa kännykällä (Pirkkalainen, 2012.)

25. MoMath – matematiikkaa kännykällä (Pirkkalainen, 2012.)

26. Technology Auditory Library Sports facilities Day care center Canteen Healthy member of a society 21st century pedagogy Schools Parks, sports field Urban spaces Markets Day care center Senior activities Community services Streets Commercial services

27. References FNBE. (2011). The school of opportunities – towards every learner’s full potential. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education. Retrieved from http://www.oph.fi/download/134584_the_school_of_opportunities.pdf Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. London & New York: Routledge. Kumpulainen, K. (2012). Learning process tomorrow: Transforming the choronotopes of learning in 21st century education. Retrieved from http://congress.utu.fi/CELE2012/5 -CELE_Kristiina Kumpulainen.pdf Nokelainen, P., Smith, H., Rahimi, M., Stasz, C., & James, S. (2012). What Contributes to Vocational Excellence? Characteristics and experiences of Competitors and Experts in WorldSkills London 2011. Madrid, Spain: WorldSkills Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.worldskillsfoundation.org/downloads/WSF_MoVE_Global_report_WSC2011.pdf

28. References Nuikkinen, K. (2009). Koulurakennus ja hyvinvointi. Teoriaa ja käytännön kokemuksia peruskouluarkkitehtuurista. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1398. Tampere: Tampere University Press. Pirkkalainen, L. (2012). Lukion matematiikkaa kännykällä. Retrieved from http://peda.net/img/portal/2485962/uusi_MoMath_LP_012012.pdf Sulonen, J. (2009). The usability of contemporary finnish schools - InnoSchool. Retrieved from http://innoschool.tkk.fi/innoarch/dokumentit/the usability of contemporary finnish schoolsPIENI.pdf