At first glance, whenever we talk about technology in school, two extreme theories face each other . About the school in the pandemic-age and about distance learning, someone says that everything has changed and someone says that nothing has changed.
But as always, the truth is a little more complex.
Statistics speak to us of a generation “adrift”, for which the school is required to adapt, provided that the school has noticed these changes, which is legitimate to doubt (in the school do the teachers discuss about social changes? do they talk about learn-to-learn now?); on the other hand, schools that have moved in time (adaptation of infrastructures and internal training) are already able actually to make “educational” proposals (not just “instructive”) with the new tools.
The feeling is that 1-2 classes in higher school has short of breath! In fact, with the DAD in high school, the adolescents experienced school as an optional experience and upon returning a sort of mutual reckoning began: the school set up a path of crossfire and – after having “used” the politically correct reasons of the need for sociality and the importance of proxemics in teaching – has actually subjected the students to daily assignments (maybe the professional horizon of the teachers remains the scrutinies, sadly); but also the students have metaphorically put the teachers up against the wall, they are no longer even willing to cheat the school, they actually desert it.
The pandemic has therefore only worked as a highlight of a foretold educational terminus: even the high school must review its programs and focus on motivation, collaboration and competence. If it remains anchored to the scheme of contents and frontal methodologies, if the educational relationship is based on “whoever wins it over”, we risk having a sensational and perhaps incontrovertible disconnect with the generations of digital natives (from born in 2006 and beyond). The future of society is at stake.
The supplementary report relating to the survey on teaching practices during the lockdown is online.
The Report, based on the study of the answers given to the online questionnaire by over 3,700 Italian teachers, is configured as a snapshot for a peculiar historical moment.
It’s not an exhaustive analysis but makes a constructive reflection.
Some of the data that emerged substantially reveal a transposition of traditional frontal teaching into the DDA, where two main practices emerge, such as video-conference lessons and the allocation of resources for study and exercises.
In general, the part of the teachers who took part in the survey split into two groups, one having a greater confidence with the ITC and face the distance as inspiring and professional challenge. The second a lower confidence with strong need to increase ITC skill for the didactics.
After lock down, a new edition of Piano Nazionale Scuola Digitale is called Piano Didattica Digitale Integrata now. Actually, it’s more like a check-list, while PNSD was something like a “what we should do for them”. PNSD was a list of good intentions by government and the school could join some announcements for the money to do. By DDI the schools write what they really can do with devices and cloud.
What will it make the difference? The difference will be in WHO is writing that. the more teachers involved in developing the plan, the more likely it is that the plan will be realized.
Ideas for creating authentic connections, meaningful relationships and classroom camaraderie through the screen.
By Apple, a collection of useful resources and ideas for “by distance” didactics:
Again about teaching by distance
We all are living in systems that are CLOSED and OPEN at the same time, and sometimes we call them “closed” and sometimes we call “open”, in according by our behaviors, our points of view, our favorite teaching techniques and so on.
So it may happen that the student ON LINE or the teacher ON LINE by their IPAD are closer and performant than they are used to be, “close” in the classroom! Strange, isn’t it?
CLOSE and OPEN, presence and distance, to be (close) or not to be… we must consider “relative”, seriously.
What’s the distance?
it is the most pronounced word in relation to school.
if we think of the pre-pandemic school, however, the teachers have always said we need also a “distant school” (eg homework) and as well the innovators have often proposed an absolutely “remote” formula, such as the flipped classroom .
And this is essentially due to the fact that the concept of “presence” is completely relative, from the learning point of view.
We have often admitted that we practice teaching through technological devices, (also) because inside the physical presence of a student there’s a mental distance; it’s that gap many of us have precisely tried to fill with technology.
And it’s the reason I think it is useful today to re-problematize the concept of distance.
Everybody knows that ITC lab is one of last dinosaurs, since “pure ITC” skills “abdicated” to WYSIWYG interfaces and more friendly approaches. Interactive boards or monitor brought ITC in the classrooms; and faster telematic, learning apps and mobile devices convinced teachers to use ITC in daily mood.
But… you know exactly what happened. Just a little percentual of teachers do really that and without evident outcomes. The most serious thing is that it’s an individual adventure.
Maybe labs have to come back. But we must think of lab as a big challenging project (on a big subject area? reading and writing and publishing? math and science? art? social? on a big learning project?) and provide some labs to invite classes to go in, with a project in their mind and right TOOLS to explore and live a different learning way!
What do you think?
Apple propone una selezione davvero allettante per accessibilità.