Christopher Shaw

Multi-access modality: a pedagogical medium integrating face-to-face and online delivery and collaboration.

After giving much thought to how I wanted to go about responding to Valerie Irvine’s presentation on the multi-access modality, it seems most honest to begin by addressing my own biases. I cannot stand online lectures. I don’t know what it is, but I have a very difficult time engaging with speakers who are not present in the room. I can usually pay attention well enough, but without the unadulterated human experience that is possible only when the presenter is physically present (and yes, I am taking that as a given), it is difficult for me to invest. So, on an instinctive and personal level I desperately want to reject Irvine’s thesis wholeheartedly. To answer one of Irvine’s guiding questions, then, yes, modality bias exists! Should it? No, but there’s nothing wrong with having an informed preference.

I don’t have an informed preference, and I suppose it bears acknowledging that not everyone thinks as I do. It takes all sorts, and if some people prefer to learn from the comfort of their own home then good for them. I’m not convinced that this wouldn’t have deleterious effects on the creation of a classroom community, however. Barring actual experience with the multi-modal approach I don’t see myself being able to affirm or abandon this suspicion, though I would be interested in examing research on this particular question. As it stands I suppose I can see both the pro and con sides as relates to classroom community: I don’t think distance and lack of physical interaction help, but the traditional classroom also doesn’t encourage the actives participation of the estimated 20% of students with some form of anxiety. I wonder, though, how much more willing they actually would be to speak up on screen. Perhaps being part of a smaller group which meets as part of a larger geographically disbursed would help. Maybe this is a helpful accomodation, maybe it’s a stepping stone towards overcoming social anxiety, maybe it’s encouraging people to stay too much in their comfort zones and limiting their social growth. I’m not a psychologist and try not to be a blowhard, so again I must reserve judgment pleading lack of information. More questions to address before I would ever try to design a multi-modal class of my own.

What I do fully buy into from Irvine’s presentation is her social justice argument. Permitting financially/physically/geographically isolated individuals to take part in the learning process outside of the traditional face-to-face modality in order to overcome whichever barrier would otherwise be in their way cannot, in my view really be argued against, even if I do see it as a second-best option. Referring back to another of the presentation’s guiding questions: no, teacher preference does not outweight the right of learners to access education. As to the implications of this flexibility, which ought to be permitted at least on the basis of need, it would require rethinking or at least reconfirming anticipated pedagogical approaches with regard to their suitability to a multi-access modality.

The biggest question I have with regard to multi-access modality (hereafter referred to as MAM because I am sick of typing it out) is how well it would work in a secondary school setting. Irvine seemed to be discussing MAM with post-secondary education in mind. The tertiary education crowd in Canada are frequently taking courses that they have chosen because they are interested, and are likely to take the whole enterprise seriously because they (or mommy and daddy, not that I’m bitter about some people getting it paid for by others) are hemorrhaging money and amassing a pile of debt for the privilege of attending. One is reluctant to speculate what some highschoolers might spend class time doing if they are skyping/bluejeansing/whatevering into class from home, when skipping , phone addiction, and vaping in class are already problems. Barring an unimaginable revolution in social attitudes and practices, I am very skeptical about the merits of MAM for secondary students, barring the accessibility exception. Is this a cynical way of thinking? Yes.

As a final thought, one point that really stuck with me: learning space design is the key to learning. An apt enough summary of the theme at the core of this presentation, and one with which I wholeheartedly agree. Environment isn’t just about attitude, it’s also about physical space.

As with our previous presentation, the time spent playing around with Ozobots in the Nusdeh Yoh library highlights the difficulty of trying to envision a use for a particular piece of technology in the absence of educational context. I’m not sure how I’d work Ozobots into any subject I hope to be teaching at the secondary level. A useful product to have in the back of my mind should I fail to find my dream job out of the gate, however. My main takeaway from this presentation has less to do with the technology itself than it does with how students operate within the learning environment. Whether we were trying to teach Ozobot to love (unsuccesful) or getting Ozobots to fight one another (inconclusive), everyone in our group was fully engaged and working closely together. Technology in the classroom can thus be an effective tool for eliciting learner engagement, cooperation, and creativity.

I recently took part in a tablet themed learning opportunity with Sandra McAulay. The presenter was enthusiastic, and discussed several potentially useful apps, though to this blogger’s eye most appeared better suited to an elementary than a secondary setting. This is not to suggest that tablets, or even some of the apps which were demonstrated, have no place at all in secondary classrooms, but I think this first impression on my part speaks to the difficulty of trying to integrate technology into the classroom taking the technology itself as a starting point. That is to say, when integrating technology into the classroom I suspect it may be easier to start with a learning goal and then find a way to integrate the technology into it. Trying to figure out how I would use tablets in the classroom without having already formed a lesson outline in my mind has been a frustrating intellectual exercise. I think this is a longwinded way of saying that while some interesting ideas were introduced I won’t really know how or if I will be able to utilize them until the opportunity actually presents itself.

I recently had the opportunity to hear Mr. Ian Landy speak on the topic of ePortfolios. He made a lot of points with which I agreed, or in which I could a least see the merit. Perhaps he simply spoke too much sense, as I have been trying for two weeks now to come up with something I feel is worth saying about the presentation–reasserting allegiance to ideas that are not particularly new has proved to be the opposite of engaging for this blogger.  So I have found myself torn between a course requirement to write reflective blog entries and the oft repeated maxim that educators must be authentic and true to themselves. Here, in any case, is a blog post on the subject of ePortfolios:

Key points I agree with: 1) portfolios are a good way for educators to share learning, ideas, and reflection; 2) eportfolios are useful for students since it acquaints them with some of the technical skills they will need in modern society; 3) electronic media are an effective way to share school goings on with parents/families/other educators etc.

Final thought: I generally prefer to read other people’s thoughts once they have cohered somewhat, rather than meander through their entire thought process, but for the writer at least I can see how blogging might be a useful reflective tool. We’ll see how it goes this semester!