Teaching with Technology

‘A Silent Revolution’

Collaboration is at the core of media literacy.  It stirs curiosity, awakens the imagination, breeds knowledge, and prompts innovation.  Consider a learning environment in which “evaluation is part of the process….there is no fear of failure….students learn at their own pace….there is liberation from ranking,” students are entrusted with their own learning, gender equality is the norm, not the exception, active learning evolves from the repetition of material in a variety of settings, and the hierarchy of learning is situated horizontally allowing for movement amongst the collective strengths of one’s surrounding peers; “it is order without the booming voice of authority…it is a silent revolution” (A Silent Revolution, 2008). 

Collaboration is learning. 

This argument is at the core of my article for this week. Essentially, what is argued is that a peer tutoring scheme would help to engage students in a shared learning experience while working in the music studio.  This scheme belongs to a type of observational learning that incorporates four different processes:

1. Attention:  For observational learning to happen, the observer must pay attention and be fully immersed in the learning situation.
2. Retention:  The retention process requires that the tutor be cognizant of the tutee’s learning needs and use those to guide instructional methods
3. Production:  The actual procedures and methods involved in executing tasks
4. Motivation: The use of reinforcement to promote further learning (Jones & King, 55).

It is important to note the role of observational learning in media literacy and the collaborative learning that fosters its development.  Attention, retention, and motivation, for example, work together to foster a continued learning cycle.  Through tagging, keywords, remix videos, comment boards, blogs, etc a community of digital learners can interact and respond to one another based on similar interests that capture their attention, a ‘supply-and-demand’ of information that supports retention, and the resulting motivation to keep alive the inquiry and dialogue amongst its users. 

Peer-to-peer teaching.

Another interesting feature of this article is the idea of the four basic types of peer-to-peer teaching at the undergraduate level:

1. Surrogate Teaching: This involves the delegation of responsibility to selected students (often PhD) of some of the teaching functions normally carried out by academic staff.
2. Proctoring:  In this situation, students take on the role of individual tutors for fellow students who have a similar or lower level understanding of a subject.
3. Co-tutoring (or reciprocal tutoring):  this happens on an informal basis regularly within the study body; in co-tutoring, students aid each other to help understanding of topics in which they encounter difficulty.
4. Teacher-less Groups:  These are peer-led discussion groups which met in the absence of a teacher. 

These four types of peer-to-peer teaching also reflect the learning communities that develop through media interaction, but speak to the types of relationships that exist rather than the types of learning that exist.

Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

I thought this was the most compelling feature of the article, which also relates back to the Silent Revolution YouTube video quoted at the beginning of this summary.  Kozulin (2003) defines the ZPD as follows:  ‘An interaction on a task between a more competent persona and a less competent person, such that the less competent person becomes independently proficient at what was initially a joint accomplished task” (as cited in Jones & King, p. 58).  This speaks to the process of absorption that truly defines this discussion of collaborative learning.  When we interact with others, we absorb their habits, perspectives, thoughts, and beliefs to the extent that they start to blend with our own.  Through a “silent revolution” we are slowly creating a collective thought system that is developing naturally through this zone of proximal development. The result is a future charged with the possibilities derived from a system that thrives on the power of its collective voice, not by the duly appointed “technician” of our learning.   

Jones, C., & King, A. (2009).  Peer learning in the music studio.  Journal of Music, Technology

and Education.  2(1), 55-70.  doi:  10.1386/jmte.2.1.55/1