I couldn't think of a snappier title than that quote from the Wiley article.
I must start off with this post - my last?! - by apologizing for not posting until now (Saturday evening). You would not believe the crazy week and past few days have been - and will continue to be tomorrow - if I told you about it. Well, you might believe me, but you'd still think I was crazy with so many balls in the air at one time.
Anywho, back to the task at hand. I have to admit - this week, a bit of a let down relatively considering. I decided to tackle this weeks' readings with the ITT article and boy, was that a mistake. I'm not really sure I can get there yet with Merrill, if you know what I mean. From the get-go I wasn't really all that excited about a theory of learning/instruction that relates what I consider to be an artform as a transaction. Like going to the ATM to withdraw me some ECON 101. Check please.
And I really hate that I had this reaction because it took me two more articles to get my brain back in gear for learning objects - which I kind of dig. While it took me quite awhile, I appreciated the Bannan-Ritland et al article - for nothing else other than helping to give me a "lay of the land" of sorts with regards to the constructivist lens and perspective.
The tongue-in-cheek note in the Wiley piece about libraries morphing into universities over time really caught me by surprise in a good way. I'd never considered that evolution, but it fits right in with where I can place myself (philosophically, epistemologically).
I don't know of any other way to continue than to espouse for a moment on my on views with regards to education and technology. So please, bear with me.
It's been awhile since I revised my educational/teaching philosophy - and maybe it's time for the next version.
I believe that - like the title of this post (quoting Wiley et al) - the greatest part, the most valuable, the most magical piece about teaching and learning is the relationship that exists between teacher, student, and content (whatever this may be). [ Doesn't that sentence just feel different than a Merrill sentence about a transaction? ]
I believe that learning happens in context, and that there are ways of creating context such that learning can be supported when real-life experience is not an option.
I believe that knowledge, content, facts, truth, data (whatever you want to call it, really) is ultimately negotiable. In conjunction, however, I do believe that there is such a thing as a "what's so" about every piece of content, every bit of knowledge.
Take for example the Civil War. What's so about the Civil War? Well, it happened - there was a lot of fighting between people during a period of time. But - and here's the fun part - when did the Civil War start? How long did it last? When did it end? What were the causes? The answers to these questions are hardly resolved, and they won't be. I can go to one textbook and get one answer, an encyclopedia to get another, and finally speak to an expert and get an additional, totally different answer. If I could travel back in time (oh, if wishing made it so...) I could go back and talk to the citizens of a variety of states in the Union and Confederacy who would each (most likely) provide me with their own version, their own story if you will, of what happened.
So - when a teacher and student approach "content" - they are approaching one version of it (if not a conglomeration/hybrid/watered down textbook version). And this is a good thing! This is all just wonderful and fabulous! Ecologists tell us that diversity - more differents! - is the law of the land, how nature evolves. The fact that there are multiple perspectives and differing opinions about domains/disciplines - that's what makes it exciting, and all of those varying perspectives get us even closer to actually, truly being able to know something.
But you don't "know" something when you can spit it back out at me. (Wikipedia says that the Civil War started with some hostilities on April 12, 1861 by the way.) I've lived with my husband for almost two years, and been with him for around five. I still don't know him yet. ;)
This is where the relationship comes in - the teacher and student and the knowable.
As you can probably imagine if I haven't lost you yet that ITT doesn't jive with me. I don't know if the best route for educators and instructional designers is towards a one-size-fits-all model demanded by economics and supply and demand.
Some will argue here that if you read between the lines (and correct me if I'm wrong) you'll note that eventually these bodies of learning objects that Merrill and others envision for the use of ITT will be employed by an artificial intelligence, helping to adjust the nature, structure, difficulty level, what not of the objects to the needs of the learner. (Or - I really could have just made this up or confused this point with another article.) I'm all for artificial intelligence helping us out with figuring out the best way to approach a subject. I find that that is one of the most exciting parts of my job as an educator, figuring out how to make the connection, how to help build the relationship.
This is where I can jive with the learning objects that Wiley, Koppi, and Bannan-Ritland write about - learning objects are just that - objects to aid in learning. Just like a textbook, or a website, or an expert. If I approach and think about learning objects in this way, I'm all for it. Bring it on.
A final thought. I'm a huge Dead Poet's Society fan. Love Robin Williams. You know that scene in the very beginning when he's reading the introduction to the poetry anthology about how to "score" a poem? That's what I had playing on a loop in my head as I was reading the Merrill piece.
In the film, Robin Williams - after the reading - says "We're not laying pipe, we're talking about poetry."
We're not laying pipe - we're talking about teaching!
I hope all of that makes sense. If it doesn't, I know I'll hear about it in the comments. Much love to all!
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Surprise, Surprise. Matthew likes Cognitive Flexibility Theory. :)
I mean - really. Is anyone on the planet really surprised that I wouldn't love this theory? I'm wondering how hard it is to change your name. Matthew Constructivist Kruger-Ross. That's not too dorky, eh?
On to the good stuff. Any article (or topic, actually) that brings up the philosophical background to a topic - I'm game. In particular - I had no idea that epistemology had any other derivative... epistemic. I totally did a double-take. Love it.
Again - the simple being made complex for me and these instructional design theories - how simple is it to realize that the learner's beliefs about knowledge and about learning and success influence how well they will, therefore, learn something. Duh! (But, on some level, I knew this - maybe just thinking about it in this way helped me wrap my mind around it in a different way? 'Til by turning, turning we come round right?)
Other than encouraging us to bring the question of epistemology into the equation - I think my favorite part of this theory is that is tries to accurately capture the real-world with it's treatment of simple vs. complex knowledge. In life there are hardly ever black and white decisions that need to be made. There is context, prioritizing, access to ample resources. CFT - even as complex as it is itself - aims to hit this nail on the head.
I'm a big picture kind of guy, as you may be able to tell by now. CFT hits the spot for that in its approach to larger themes of a topic. And we must create and build our own learning/knowledge-base. Using cases (or stories) - while proven by research - just makes good, common sense.
I think a lot of folks approaching CFT (and trying to also figure out how to use CFT and multimedia) can be daunted by the amount of time it might take to create a module based on CFT. I think we need to rethink our position as teachers to fix this concern, or at least take it down a notch. If we are still of the perspective that the teacher sits on high delivering curriculum - then sure, you better get to work and produce that module!
However - if we step back from that perspective and view the teacher as part of the larger learning community, first among equals of sorts - then the teacher doesn't necessarily have to produce a finished product - a perfect example of a CFT module. The teacher could create the basic framework and then through activities, discussions, multimedia production - all with students helping - literally live a CFT example. Wouldn't be very good for official research purposes, but it would get the job done and truly engage the learners.
Kevin's done an excellent job making CFT accessible via the Plantation Letters. It really stretched me - in more ways than just the technology and the theory! Other ways to pull it off could be via YouTube, SecondLife, Voicethread, GoogleMaps,... - I'm really thinking of all of these as venues for cases/stories/offering multiple perspectives. There's still going to be a need for a leader of sorts to create some kind of "hub" to help convey the big picture - and now I'm going to spend the rest of the weekend trying to think of ways to pull it off!
Can't wait to read all of your reflections. Don't know what I'm going to do with myself when I don't have to write these weekly blog posts. Have a great week!
On to the good stuff. Any article (or topic, actually) that brings up the philosophical background to a topic - I'm game. In particular - I had no idea that epistemology had any other derivative... epistemic. I totally did a double-take. Love it.
Again - the simple being made complex for me and these instructional design theories - how simple is it to realize that the learner's beliefs about knowledge and about learning and success influence how well they will, therefore, learn something. Duh! (But, on some level, I knew this - maybe just thinking about it in this way helped me wrap my mind around it in a different way? 'Til by turning, turning we come round right?)
Other than encouraging us to bring the question of epistemology into the equation - I think my favorite part of this theory is that is tries to accurately capture the real-world with it's treatment of simple vs. complex knowledge. In life there are hardly ever black and white decisions that need to be made. There is context, prioritizing, access to ample resources. CFT - even as complex as it is itself - aims to hit this nail on the head.
I'm a big picture kind of guy, as you may be able to tell by now. CFT hits the spot for that in its approach to larger themes of a topic. And we must create and build our own learning/knowledge-base. Using cases (or stories) - while proven by research - just makes good, common sense.
I think a lot of folks approaching CFT (and trying to also figure out how to use CFT and multimedia) can be daunted by the amount of time it might take to create a module based on CFT. I think we need to rethink our position as teachers to fix this concern, or at least take it down a notch. If we are still of the perspective that the teacher sits on high delivering curriculum - then sure, you better get to work and produce that module!
However - if we step back from that perspective and view the teacher as part of the larger learning community, first among equals of sorts - then the teacher doesn't necessarily have to produce a finished product - a perfect example of a CFT module. The teacher could create the basic framework and then through activities, discussions, multimedia production - all with students helping - literally live a CFT example. Wouldn't be very good for official research purposes, but it would get the job done and truly engage the learners.
Kevin's done an excellent job making CFT accessible via the Plantation Letters. It really stretched me - in more ways than just the technology and the theory! Other ways to pull it off could be via YouTube, SecondLife, Voicethread, GoogleMaps,... - I'm really thinking of all of these as venues for cases/stories/offering multiple perspectives. There's still going to be a need for a leader of sorts to create some kind of "hub" to help convey the big picture - and now I'm going to spend the rest of the weekend trying to think of ways to pull it off!
Can't wait to read all of your reflections. Don't know what I'm going to do with myself when I don't have to write these weekly blog posts. Have a great week!
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Are those wedding bells I hear? Nope - just Matthew & Cased-Based Reasoning
That's it - all the other previous theories can pack it up, call it a day, and go on home. CBL/CBR is now my new and all-time favorite. We're getting married. The invitations are in the mail. ;)
It took me a few minutes to warm up this week, to be honest. However, once I got my teeth into the Jonassen and Wang articles - I was absolutely in heaven. Cases = stories. Done. Stick a fork in me, wrap it up.
This week's theory feels like the hunch I've had for awhile now (about stories and storytelling in teaching) and added on another layer of the best bits from my other favorite theories (apprenticeship, situated, etc.). In fact - as I was reading the Jonassen article I kept reading what felt like really familiar phrases and thinking... checked the references and there it was. Good ole Kieran Egan - my storytelling theorist. ;) (If you've got some free time, reading some of his works is an interesting and fun brain exercise.) I don't know about you - but I've now got about 4-5 extra readings I'm going to have to go off and do that I got from the refs from this weeks' readings. Don't ya just love how that happens?
Back to the love fest. I have to say - and as hard as it is to acknowledge this - that I was wrong about GBS and Schank from a few weeks ago. Apparently I ate something that changed my mood... or I just wasn't in the right frame of mind when I was reading the Schank pieces because I had no idea - and couldn't see the connection until the past few days in this weeks' readings - that he was so influential in helping to shift the landscape such that narrative could be considered as central to instruction, teaching and learning. Goes to show - well, goes to show that I can be wrong and should spend more time reflecting before making a judgment. ;) (Schank's books/articles are on the short-list of things to read, by the way.)
The place that I would love to see instructional design theory "get to" is beyond even boxing in cases/stories just to describe problems... and to aid in the solving of problems. What if - oh, what if - "objective" truths and reasonings were considered as just another version of a story we tell ourselves?? But I must get back to the topic at hand.
I appreciated all of the readings this week for their thorough treatment of the theoretical background for the narrative approach. (Also another reason why I you'll find me in the library this afternoon.) On one level - and I've mentioned this before in my weekly reflections - this theory, the basic assumption that we live and pass on lessons learned via stories and we should find a way to preserve these stories, seems so simple. Really, rather anticlimactic once you've climbed the mountain and look back down at where you've come from. I mean - don't get me wrong - the idea that we should be teaching through personal narrative is a huge departure from what has been institutionalized as "learning" - but really? We learn best by sharing about our experiences in our storytelling. Duh. (Hard to hold this paradox together, honestly.)
The first place that my mind jumped to with regards to employing technology to facilitate case-based reasoning methods was YouTube. How awesome to have YouTube house your "expert"'s (or maybe not "experts") thoughts and reflections about a discipline, problem, or issue?
In fact - try this on for a minute - when parents come to me with questions about math... not easy math, but rational numbers and factoring and things like that - I point them to YouTube. With a cleverly aligned string of search/keywords you can find just about anything up there. The jackpot is when you find a video of someone working out/explaining the same problem that you're stumped on. Eight out of ten times this isn't true - so you end up having to watch and deduce the problem solving patterns - and then figure out how to apply what you've just seen to the problem you have at hand? Is this not an informal version of CBR? (Side question/note - can an "informal" application be a "true" exemplar of a theory?)
That's my recommendation. Go for the video rather than straight to audio. You wouldn't even have to edit it all that much. (Although the Wang article really humbled me in terms of developing their search engine. Whew!) And you could just use tags to help with the search function.
Enough gloating. Must share with my peers now. Hope you enjoyed this week's theory as much as I did. Gosh - if next week is as good as this one - I don't know if I'll be able to handle it!
It took me a few minutes to warm up this week, to be honest. However, once I got my teeth into the Jonassen and Wang articles - I was absolutely in heaven. Cases = stories. Done. Stick a fork in me, wrap it up.
This week's theory feels like the hunch I've had for awhile now (about stories and storytelling in teaching) and added on another layer of the best bits from my other favorite theories (apprenticeship, situated, etc.). In fact - as I was reading the Jonassen article I kept reading what felt like really familiar phrases and thinking... checked the references and there it was. Good ole Kieran Egan - my storytelling theorist. ;) (If you've got some free time, reading some of his works is an interesting and fun brain exercise.) I don't know about you - but I've now got about 4-5 extra readings I'm going to have to go off and do that I got from the refs from this weeks' readings. Don't ya just love how that happens?
Back to the love fest. I have to say - and as hard as it is to acknowledge this - that I was wrong about GBS and Schank from a few weeks ago. Apparently I ate something that changed my mood... or I just wasn't in the right frame of mind when I was reading the Schank pieces because I had no idea - and couldn't see the connection until the past few days in this weeks' readings - that he was so influential in helping to shift the landscape such that narrative could be considered as central to instruction, teaching and learning. Goes to show - well, goes to show that I can be wrong and should spend more time reflecting before making a judgment. ;) (Schank's books/articles are on the short-list of things to read, by the way.)
The place that I would love to see instructional design theory "get to" is beyond even boxing in cases/stories just to describe problems... and to aid in the solving of problems. What if - oh, what if - "objective" truths and reasonings were considered as just another version of a story we tell ourselves?? But I must get back to the topic at hand.
I appreciated all of the readings this week for their thorough treatment of the theoretical background for the narrative approach. (Also another reason why I you'll find me in the library this afternoon.) On one level - and I've mentioned this before in my weekly reflections - this theory, the basic assumption that we live and pass on lessons learned via stories and we should find a way to preserve these stories, seems so simple. Really, rather anticlimactic once you've climbed the mountain and look back down at where you've come from. I mean - don't get me wrong - the idea that we should be teaching through personal narrative is a huge departure from what has been institutionalized as "learning" - but really? We learn best by sharing about our experiences in our storytelling. Duh. (Hard to hold this paradox together, honestly.)
The first place that my mind jumped to with regards to employing technology to facilitate case-based reasoning methods was YouTube. How awesome to have YouTube house your "expert"'s (or maybe not "experts") thoughts and reflections about a discipline, problem, or issue?
In fact - try this on for a minute - when parents come to me with questions about math... not easy math, but rational numbers and factoring and things like that - I point them to YouTube. With a cleverly aligned string of search/keywords you can find just about anything up there. The jackpot is when you find a video of someone working out/explaining the same problem that you're stumped on. Eight out of ten times this isn't true - so you end up having to watch and deduce the problem solving patterns - and then figure out how to apply what you've just seen to the problem you have at hand? Is this not an informal version of CBR? (Side question/note - can an "informal" application be a "true" exemplar of a theory?)
That's my recommendation. Go for the video rather than straight to audio. You wouldn't even have to edit it all that much. (Although the Wang article really humbled me in terms of developing their search engine. Whew!) And you could just use tags to help with the search function.
Enough gloating. Must share with my peers now. Hope you enjoyed this week's theory as much as I did. Gosh - if next week is as good as this one - I don't know if I'll be able to handle it!
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
The MOST Model - with the MOST References
Holy moly - did you see how many articles/references there were made at the end of the reading for this week? Sheesh!
I did enjoy the reading, however - in particular because I liked how in-depth they got with reading. I guess it feels like we've spent a lot of time and read a lot about how these learning models/theories we're studying can be applied in mathematics/science contexts. Was nice to talk a little about phonics.
I am glad that Kevin explained the overarching message behind the theory though because - and they warned us - they were heavy on the background and not so much on the practical applications (you know what I mean) as of yet. Or at least... I needed a MOST environment to help me fully wrap my brain around MOST. (I didn't really, trying to make a funny... but that one might have flopped.)
The idea of redefining literacy is something that has intrigued me for awhile - and I'm glad that they talk about it within the context of the MOST model (they refer to it as representational literacy). Literacy used to mean ... well, can you read? But I must say I prefer the broader, more expanded understanding. Literacy isn't just about how information gets in your brain via books and text. It's about all of the good stuff and how it gets in your head and then (wait for it) ... what you do with it! (This then leads to a conversation about using your knowledge to create something, or synthesis the information, or what not... just not regurgitating "facts".)
Their idea of multimedia helping to formulate mental models and that therefore helping to increase a student's literacy - love it. More and more I'm finding myself falling for (in a good way) the multimedia ... idea or cause or what not. I loved the correlation made towards the beginning of the article that language learning is all about taking in information from multiple sources of media ... for me this was one of those "Duh!" moments. It just so happens that as of April 2010 we now have at our fingertips ways of creating different kinds of multimedia. :)
Back to the mental models. This makes me thing of last week with the STAR model and having the "big picture" mental map right there for all to see and to help with overall understanding. The same (I think) can be paralleled for this week's model. The video helps to create the mental model in the students' brain - priming the ground for some heavy-duty learning!
And of course - learning happens in context. Love it. Amazed at how often its written about.
Kevin did a pretty good job of giving us examples for implementing this theory using today's technological resources in this weeks' lecture. In particular I think the idea of redifining "clips" more broadly helps me to wrap my brain around how this might be used using some of the Web 2.0 technologies available to us. Trailfire seems like a good start - maybe even Cmap. Then, of course, the old faithfuls. Making a wiki-based website that is easy to edit - embed YouTube videos. I think you could even have tools set up for kids to create their own videos to retell the stories and then post them to YouTube (this would assume a little older students that the K's and 1st graders that were used in some of the studies).
I'm trying to wrap my mind around using the MOST model outside of the context of learning to read. I know they mention in the article the two areas that they wanted to explore (prof dev and reaching out to the community). I'm going to be thinking over the next few days about using this for... I don't know... science. :)
Especially with my idea/theory of instruction as storytelling... I'm wondering if the MOST model might be a good idea to help me frame how learning is "assessed" within this new framework...
Thinking/typing outloud now...
What if you tell the "story" of dividing fractions. Then you have students retell the story using some form of multimedia... video, podcast, VoiceThread, Prezi. Just a thought.
Signing off! Hope everyone has a great week!
I did enjoy the reading, however - in particular because I liked how in-depth they got with reading. I guess it feels like we've spent a lot of time and read a lot about how these learning models/theories we're studying can be applied in mathematics/science contexts. Was nice to talk a little about phonics.
I am glad that Kevin explained the overarching message behind the theory though because - and they warned us - they were heavy on the background and not so much on the practical applications (you know what I mean) as of yet. Or at least... I needed a MOST environment to help me fully wrap my brain around MOST. (I didn't really, trying to make a funny... but that one might have flopped.)
The idea of redefining literacy is something that has intrigued me for awhile - and I'm glad that they talk about it within the context of the MOST model (they refer to it as representational literacy). Literacy used to mean ... well, can you read? But I must say I prefer the broader, more expanded understanding. Literacy isn't just about how information gets in your brain via books and text. It's about all of the good stuff and how it gets in your head and then (wait for it) ... what you do with it! (This then leads to a conversation about using your knowledge to create something, or synthesis the information, or what not... just not regurgitating "facts".)
Their idea of multimedia helping to formulate mental models and that therefore helping to increase a student's literacy - love it. More and more I'm finding myself falling for (in a good way) the multimedia ... idea or cause or what not. I loved the correlation made towards the beginning of the article that language learning is all about taking in information from multiple sources of media ... for me this was one of those "Duh!" moments. It just so happens that as of April 2010 we now have at our fingertips ways of creating different kinds of multimedia. :)
Back to the mental models. This makes me thing of last week with the STAR model and having the "big picture" mental map right there for all to see and to help with overall understanding. The same (I think) can be paralleled for this week's model. The video helps to create the mental model in the students' brain - priming the ground for some heavy-duty learning!
And of course - learning happens in context. Love it. Amazed at how often its written about.
Kevin did a pretty good job of giving us examples for implementing this theory using today's technological resources in this weeks' lecture. In particular I think the idea of redifining "clips" more broadly helps me to wrap my brain around how this might be used using some of the Web 2.0 technologies available to us. Trailfire seems like a good start - maybe even Cmap. Then, of course, the old faithfuls. Making a wiki-based website that is easy to edit - embed YouTube videos. I think you could even have tools set up for kids to create their own videos to retell the stories and then post them to YouTube (this would assume a little older students that the K's and 1st graders that were used in some of the studies).
I'm trying to wrap my mind around using the MOST model outside of the context of learning to read. I know they mention in the article the two areas that they wanted to explore (prof dev and reaching out to the community). I'm going to be thinking over the next few days about using this for... I don't know... science. :)
Especially with my idea/theory of instruction as storytelling... I'm wondering if the MOST model might be a good idea to help me frame how learning is "assessed" within this new framework...
Thinking/typing outloud now...
What if you tell the "story" of dividing fractions. Then you have students retell the story using some form of multimedia... video, podcast, VoiceThread, Prezi. Just a thought.
Signing off! Hope everyone has a great week!
Sunday, March 28, 2010
The STAR LEGACY Modules: Launch Pads for Learning
Couldn't help myself with the title there. :)
I'm a little later than I had anticipated on my reflection this week. Jet lag and getting back into the swing of life back home took longer than I thought it would.
Really, now. Each week it just keeps getting better and better with these theories!
Lovin' the STAR. "Software Technology for Action & Reflection." Action and Reflection - that's some sexy stuff!
All kidding and joking aside I am quite impressed with this model and I feel a certain connection to it - and I'm not entirely sure if that is based in philosophy/theory or the style/tone of the authors. I am a huge proponent of simplicity. Simplicity = Godliness. And - at least for me - the STAR methodology(ies) seem to just make good sense.
Let's start with the placement of this theory in relation to other theories - middle of the road they say - and I'd agree. The phrase "Flexibly Adaptive Instructional Design" - while a mouthful - says it all. Learning doesn't always happen in nice, neat little objective-sounding chunks. It's not always linear. It's cyclical and it builds on itself and it can be confusing and nerve-wracking. Thank goodness they've figured out a way to hard-wire in reflection into the process!
Launch Pad for learning ... I think I'm changing my middle name to LaunchPad - or STAR. This is exactly how I've been viewing our online modules that we're all creating for this course. While we may be employing and trying on different instructional design theories, the modules that we're creating always serve as some sort of hub of what we're doing. Now there's a theory that standardizes or formalizes this a bit. Whoohoo! (I know, I know... I'm greatly simplifying this, but you get my drift.)
And... drum roll... being thoughtful about your legacy? YES!! I love it! There is just something that happens to you... imagine it... after you've been so invested in learning about ... whatever ... and you're feeling successful and proud of yourself and your group. And then someone asks you - "What do you want your legacy to be?" That's some awesome (and purposefully 'deep') stuff right there. Bring it on!
Final big thought before I bring it on home. Mapping out the journey. Learning is a journey. Sometimes where you though you were headed isn't where you really end up. My methods professor in my undergrad used to talk about our Syllabus as a map. And every few weeks we'd have a "consult the map" talk - where we looked back at where we'd been, where we were headed next, and how the terrain... and map!... had changed in the process. I used to do this in my classroom as a math teacher - in fact it's one of the things I learned about myself as a learner - and that's helping map the terrain, throwing down some boundaries, laying out the context, painting the big picture... pick your metaphor... of what it is we're all about or what we're doing or what we're learning or where we're headed. Love, love, love it.
How could this be done online today? Easy. Just like my group's been doing with our modules and Google Sites, and other groups with Weebly/Wordpress and what not. There's your Launch Pad - some sort of easily editable website. YouTube videos to help with Research. Podcasts the same. Google Docs for reflections. Use Twitter to access experts. Have them Test their Mettle with online quizzes and surveys to test their hypotheses. Going Public... well that's never been easier than right now! Have them broadcast their learning to the world! Get some iPod Touches thrown in the mix and have at it. Cell phones too. ;)
My one overarching question that this article/theory left me with: they talk a lot in their footnotes about the industrial-age paradigm and the "new paradigm." I think I can guess the prior... but I'm wondering where I can learn more about this so-called "new paradigm"... that's, well, not so new anymore - but you know what I mean. I get that there are other theories out there, many that might fit under the umbrella of the new paradigm. What are those? Ideas? Can someone draw me a map and point me in the right direction? ;)
I'm a little later than I had anticipated on my reflection this week. Jet lag and getting back into the swing of life back home took longer than I thought it would.
Really, now. Each week it just keeps getting better and better with these theories!
Lovin' the STAR. "Software Technology for Action & Reflection." Action and Reflection - that's some sexy stuff!
All kidding and joking aside I am quite impressed with this model and I feel a certain connection to it - and I'm not entirely sure if that is based in philosophy/theory or the style/tone of the authors. I am a huge proponent of simplicity. Simplicity = Godliness. And - at least for me - the STAR methodology(ies) seem to just make good sense.
Let's start with the placement of this theory in relation to other theories - middle of the road they say - and I'd agree. The phrase "Flexibly Adaptive Instructional Design" - while a mouthful - says it all. Learning doesn't always happen in nice, neat little objective-sounding chunks. It's not always linear. It's cyclical and it builds on itself and it can be confusing and nerve-wracking. Thank goodness they've figured out a way to hard-wire in reflection into the process!
Launch Pad for learning ... I think I'm changing my middle name to LaunchPad - or STAR. This is exactly how I've been viewing our online modules that we're all creating for this course. While we may be employing and trying on different instructional design theories, the modules that we're creating always serve as some sort of hub of what we're doing. Now there's a theory that standardizes or formalizes this a bit. Whoohoo! (I know, I know... I'm greatly simplifying this, but you get my drift.)
And... drum roll... being thoughtful about your legacy? YES!! I love it! There is just something that happens to you... imagine it... after you've been so invested in learning about ... whatever ... and you're feeling successful and proud of yourself and your group. And then someone asks you - "What do you want your legacy to be?" That's some awesome (and purposefully 'deep') stuff right there. Bring it on!
Final big thought before I bring it on home. Mapping out the journey. Learning is a journey. Sometimes where you though you were headed isn't where you really end up. My methods professor in my undergrad used to talk about our Syllabus as a map. And every few weeks we'd have a "consult the map" talk - where we looked back at where we'd been, where we were headed next, and how the terrain... and map!... had changed in the process. I used to do this in my classroom as a math teacher - in fact it's one of the things I learned about myself as a learner - and that's helping map the terrain, throwing down some boundaries, laying out the context, painting the big picture... pick your metaphor... of what it is we're all about or what we're doing or what we're learning or where we're headed. Love, love, love it.
How could this be done online today? Easy. Just like my group's been doing with our modules and Google Sites, and other groups with Weebly/Wordpress and what not. There's your Launch Pad - some sort of easily editable website. YouTube videos to help with Research. Podcasts the same. Google Docs for reflections. Use Twitter to access experts. Have them Test their Mettle with online quizzes and surveys to test their hypotheses. Going Public... well that's never been easier than right now! Have them broadcast their learning to the world! Get some iPod Touches thrown in the mix and have at it. Cell phones too. ;)
My one overarching question that this article/theory left me with: they talk a lot in their footnotes about the industrial-age paradigm and the "new paradigm." I think I can guess the prior... but I'm wondering where I can learn more about this so-called "new paradigm"... that's, well, not so new anymore - but you know what I mean. I get that there are other theories out there, many that might fit under the umbrella of the new paradigm. What are those? Ideas? Can someone draw me a map and point me in the right direction? ;)
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Learning Ahoy! Setting sail for Anchored Instruction Island with the Vanderbilt Crew!
Okay - so I couldn't think of/find a "perfect" quote for this week's theory - hereafter called AI (not to be confused with Artificial Intelligence or some other fancy name with the acronym AI). So, I decided to do the next best thing if you can't find a cool quote - play off the imagery of the title. ;)
I am back on track of my loving the instructional theories. I really enjoyed this week’s – and I think that that is due in large part to it’s grounding in the previous week’s theory, Cognitive Apprenticeship/Situated Learning. I know that there are many similarities to GBS (Yikes! – See my previous posts), but this theory (AI) fits more with the CA/SL theories. Maybe I just want it to fit more with my favorite theory thus far. ;)
I appreciated the extensive examples that were provided by the authors. I got a little tired of reading the phrase “our group” – I get it, your group did it all and wrote a lot about it – but I think they were smart in how they approached their publications. I had heard of the “Jasper” problems before, but I’ve never actually seen them “live and in living color.” I have a vague memory of hearing about a set of very hard “problems” that students between the elementary and college years could work on and still be challenged by, that had content/skills built in. I can only assume based on the readings that these problems I’m thinking of were Jaspers.
I may have mentioned before that I have a developing theory in my head about teaching as storytelling. If I haven’t ever mentioned it before, I have a theory about teaching as storytelling. J AI feels very much like it could fit nicely into that schema for me. And – for some unknown reason – the contextual story that is used to frame the modules we read about which could be paralleled with the GBS “cover story” doesn’t feel exactly the same to me. They feel like two sides of the same coin, but still, two different sides.
The main challenge I’m seeing/thinking about is how intense these experiences would be to create. I mean – did you read how many different examples/projects that they were working on to experiment with their theory? (And also the footnote that all of their research is being funded by a seemingly large grant?) And all of that technology being on DVDs (or compact discs I think they say). How long and how intense is the design process? I’m imagining needing to hire a company to come in and help me design all of the components!
So practically speaking – how to use this. I can see using a form of Digital Storytelling (there are tons of sites out there to help with this). I’m also thinking about ways to use something like YouTube where you could have linked videos… based on where/what the student needed to go you could have any number of videos linked. I also immediately go to Flash… and then shudder a bit as I remember how steep the learning curve is for Flash. I guess I’m thinking that with something like AI you’d have to literally build a content-world from the ground up. That’s some pretty intense web design I’m seeing happening in my head!
Since I’m composing this post in Word (thanks American Airlines for no wifi on a plane – why hasn’t this just been figured out already???) I’m pretty sure I’m way over my normal post length. I’ll stop while I’m ahead and post this when we land and I get some decent Internet. On to reading and figuring out how to sleep upright. Probably more of the former than the latter. Will see you all in the Comments section! Enjoy your Spring Break!
I’m actually writing this post from 33,000 miles in the air! One of the research projects that I’m working on right now is studying how technology can be used to enhance short-term Study Abroad experiences – and I’m en route to my research site as I type! You’ll have to excuse the exclamation points. We’ve been talking and planning and thinking and talking some more about this trip for MONTHS … and here I am on my way across the globe.
I am back on track of my loving the instructional theories. I really enjoyed this week’s – and I think that that is due in large part to it’s grounding in the previous week’s theory, Cognitive Apprenticeship/Situated Learning. I know that there are many similarities to GBS (Yikes! – See my previous posts), but this theory (AI) fits more with the CA/SL theories. Maybe I just want it to fit more with my favorite theory thus far. ;)
I appreciated the extensive examples that were provided by the authors. I got a little tired of reading the phrase “our group” – I get it, your group did it all and wrote a lot about it – but I think they were smart in how they approached their publications. I had heard of the “Jasper” problems before, but I’ve never actually seen them “live and in living color.” I have a vague memory of hearing about a set of very hard “problems” that students between the elementary and college years could work on and still be challenged by, that had content/skills built in. I can only assume based on the readings that these problems I’m thinking of were Jaspers.
I may have mentioned before that I have a developing theory in my head about teaching as storytelling. If I haven’t ever mentioned it before, I have a theory about teaching as storytelling. J AI feels very much like it could fit nicely into that schema for me. And – for some unknown reason – the contextual story that is used to frame the modules we read about which could be paralleled with the GBS “cover story” doesn’t feel exactly the same to me. They feel like two sides of the same coin, but still, two different sides.
The main challenge I’m seeing/thinking about is how intense these experiences would be to create. I mean – did you read how many different examples/projects that they were working on to experiment with their theory? (And also the footnote that all of their research is being funded by a seemingly large grant?) And all of that technology being on DVDs (or compact discs I think they say). How long and how intense is the design process? I’m imagining needing to hire a company to come in and help me design all of the components!
So practically speaking – how to use this. I can see using a form of Digital Storytelling (there are tons of sites out there to help with this). I’m also thinking about ways to use something like YouTube where you could have linked videos… based on where/what the student needed to go you could have any number of videos linked. I also immediately go to Flash… and then shudder a bit as I remember how steep the learning curve is for Flash. I guess I’m thinking that with something like AI you’d have to literally build a content-world from the ground up. That’s some pretty intense web design I’m seeing happening in my head!
Since I’m composing this post in Word (thanks American Airlines for no wifi on a plane – why hasn’t this just been figured out already???) I’m pretty sure I’m way over my normal post length. I’ll stop while I’m ahead and post this when we land and I get some decent Internet. On to reading and figuring out how to sleep upright. Probably more of the former than the latter. Will see you all in the Comments section! Enjoy your Spring Break!
Friday, March 5, 2010
PBL @ NCTIES
Some of you may know that there is a conference happening right now in Raleigh - NCTIES - that I'm unfortunately unable to attend, but am following along voraciously via Twitter... and this just came across my Twitter feed:
RT @swalker2: Just blogged this: Integrating Technology into Problem Based Learning http://is.gd/9KZcR #ncties #wsfcs
Check out the blog post.
RT @swalker2: Just blogged this: Integrating Technology into Problem Based Learning http://is.gd/9KZcR #ncties #wsfcs
Check out the blog post.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Goals + Doing = Learning... Schank's Goal-Based Scenarios (GBS)
Okay. I have to go ahead and lay it out on the line. Not so much on feeling the love for this week's theory. And that actually makes me kind of sad considering the high of last week's with the modeling and coaching and boom! pow! wow! The GBS kind of fell flat for me... and I've been trying for the past few hours to figure out exactly why.
But, honestly? I'm not close to an answer.
Maybe it's that all of the examples seem to be driven and are directly connected to Schank. Does that make sense? It seems like the other theories that we've experienced were tested and explored by a variety of scholars and teachers and practitioners. Only this week there's Schank and then two others who basically copied Schank (I know, I know - it's not "exactly" copied, one was for business training/development and the other was for teaching stats... but you get what I mean).
I didn't originally feel this way when I watched/listened to the overview of the theory this past weekend. I kinda got what direction we were headed in, GBS made sense. I had a happy party in my head thinking of ways to use this theory (and even some elements of the theory that I lived while in the classroom). Then I sat down to read the Hsu & Moore piece - and I don't know if it was the tone (or lack of one) or the matter-of-fact-ness of their writing... the whole piece just left we with an "eh..." attitude. So I grabbed the Schank piece thinking that reading the creator's words would lift me a bit.
I think it's interesting that the theory grew from his studies of memory and the innards of a computer. I don't think the theory is as radical as he makes it out to be. Sure - teaching skills within a context is a shift from the traditional view of teaching/learning. But we've seen (and will see) other models that will accomplish the same goal. His thoughts on memory were so ... "Well, this is it, as you can plainly see, my rationalization of the rational is completely rational. Therefore, doing = learning = memory = rational = good."
I may be being a little too harsh... but if you could hear me talk about this in person, you'd hear the tone of my voice and you'd know that I was only metaphorically poking a stick at Schank and the theory.
I don't agree with his analysis of memory, which he uses as a foundation for GBS. Back to what I was saying about not that drastic of a shift... Skills are still what's important in his theory. Instead of cramming them down students' throats, however, now teachers just need to figure out how to create a scenario to motivate them to learn the skills. (Remember, learn = do.)
I've learned lots of stuff that I haven't "done." I learn tons of things from books and videos.
And I also learn by "doing" as well.
And then there's "goals." Just doesn't sit well with me. Feels too familiar... too similar to what's already there. Like a friend who's just had a makeover to come back to you with a bad haircut and poorly done makeup... do you tell them they look amazing?
Okay - that might not have been the best analogy. Let's try this.
Years ago - when I was preparing myself to go and teach at a Quaker school - I read everything that Parker Palmer had ever written. (His research ranges from the spirituality of education and learning to higher education administration.) I would be 100% lying if I didn't admit that his beliefs and theories about learning did not color my own - and this is probably why I'm struggling this week.
Palmer says (in a horrible simplification) that learning involves three key factors: the learner, the teacher/facilitator, and the content/discipline. The only way anything ever really works in teaching/learning is when all three of these components are in relationship to each other. And he's written pages and pages about what these different relationships can look like.
In this theory, it seems to me that the teacher/facilitator has been all but left out. Sure they make the goals and the "cover" story - but then there's the learner... and there's the content. My job as facilitator is still to "make" the student learn... to motivate them. While I'll embrace that part of my job is to motivate students - it doesn't jive with me that my job is to make anyone do anything.
I guess if the GBS was truly authentic - and it was created with great care, I could go there. I could try it on, and it might be wonderful! This is the section of the course where skills/content drives the theory - and this may be the ultimate cause of my discomfort.
In terms of using this theory with technology/multimedia... I could easily see a series of webpages on a wiki creating an environment like this. Flash too - but I'm not as well versed in Flash. Seeing as I'm currently just beginning to explore SecondLife, I'll throw that hat in the ring as well. Can't you embed links within a YouTube video? If you could... think of how cool THAT might be... (I'm thinking of the "create your own adventure"-ish perspective.)
Must stop before I offend anyone else. Will have to trust that my peers will elder me and show me the error of my ways!
Hoping reading all of y'all's blogs will help me see more possibility with GBS.
But, honestly? I'm not close to an answer.
Maybe it's that all of the examples seem to be driven and are directly connected to Schank. Does that make sense? It seems like the other theories that we've experienced were tested and explored by a variety of scholars and teachers and practitioners. Only this week there's Schank and then two others who basically copied Schank (I know, I know - it's not "exactly" copied, one was for business training/development and the other was for teaching stats... but you get what I mean).
I didn't originally feel this way when I watched/listened to the overview of the theory this past weekend. I kinda got what direction we were headed in, GBS made sense. I had a happy party in my head thinking of ways to use this theory (and even some elements of the theory that I lived while in the classroom). Then I sat down to read the Hsu & Moore piece - and I don't know if it was the tone (or lack of one) or the matter-of-fact-ness of their writing... the whole piece just left we with an "eh..." attitude. So I grabbed the Schank piece thinking that reading the creator's words would lift me a bit.
I think it's interesting that the theory grew from his studies of memory and the innards of a computer. I don't think the theory is as radical as he makes it out to be. Sure - teaching skills within a context is a shift from the traditional view of teaching/learning. But we've seen (and will see) other models that will accomplish the same goal. His thoughts on memory were so ... "Well, this is it, as you can plainly see, my rationalization of the rational is completely rational. Therefore, doing = learning = memory = rational = good."
I may be being a little too harsh... but if you could hear me talk about this in person, you'd hear the tone of my voice and you'd know that I was only metaphorically poking a stick at Schank and the theory.
I don't agree with his analysis of memory, which he uses as a foundation for GBS. Back to what I was saying about not that drastic of a shift... Skills are still what's important in his theory. Instead of cramming them down students' throats, however, now teachers just need to figure out how to create a scenario to motivate them to learn the skills. (Remember, learn = do.)
I've learned lots of stuff that I haven't "done." I learn tons of things from books and videos.
And I also learn by "doing" as well.
And then there's "goals." Just doesn't sit well with me. Feels too familiar... too similar to what's already there. Like a friend who's just had a makeover to come back to you with a bad haircut and poorly done makeup... do you tell them they look amazing?
Okay - that might not have been the best analogy. Let's try this.
Years ago - when I was preparing myself to go and teach at a Quaker school - I read everything that Parker Palmer had ever written. (His research ranges from the spirituality of education and learning to higher education administration.) I would be 100% lying if I didn't admit that his beliefs and theories about learning did not color my own - and this is probably why I'm struggling this week.
Palmer says (in a horrible simplification) that learning involves three key factors: the learner, the teacher/facilitator, and the content/discipline. The only way anything ever really works in teaching/learning is when all three of these components are in relationship to each other. And he's written pages and pages about what these different relationships can look like.
In this theory, it seems to me that the teacher/facilitator has been all but left out. Sure they make the goals and the "cover" story - but then there's the learner... and there's the content. My job as facilitator is still to "make" the student learn... to motivate them. While I'll embrace that part of my job is to motivate students - it doesn't jive with me that my job is to make anyone do anything.
I guess if the GBS was truly authentic - and it was created with great care, I could go there. I could try it on, and it might be wonderful! This is the section of the course where skills/content drives the theory - and this may be the ultimate cause of my discomfort.
In terms of using this theory with technology/multimedia... I could easily see a series of webpages on a wiki creating an environment like this. Flash too - but I'm not as well versed in Flash. Seeing as I'm currently just beginning to explore SecondLife, I'll throw that hat in the ring as well. Can't you embed links within a YouTube video? If you could... think of how cool THAT might be... (I'm thinking of the "create your own adventure"-ish perspective.)
Must stop before I offend anyone else. Will have to trust that my peers will elder me and show me the error of my ways!
Hoping reading all of y'all's blogs will help me see more possibility with GBS.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Model, Coach, Fade = Authentic learning: My Love affair with Cognitive Apprenticeship
You know that phrase/realization that young couples make early in the honeymoon period that they learn to love each other more and more with each passing day? (I'm not being cynical - because I do believe this is true!)
Well - this pretty much feels like my experience with all of these learning theories. I know we've only just scratched the surface of what we're going to learn this semester (actually, I think we're at halfway now that I really think about it) but it seems like with each passing week I like/love that week's theory moreso than the previous weeks'. And here we have my love affair with SL/CA (Situated Learning/Cognitive Apprenticeship). I say love affair because love is confusing and complicated and messy and deep ... and that's how I'm feeling right now about SL/CA. :)
One the one hand I was pseudo-relieved that all of this research had been completed providing a true, theoretically based alternative to "formal" schooling. (If you've read any of my previous posts you'll know that I have quite a bone to pick with traditional modes of education.) On the other hand - I was kind of pissed! Why hadn't I thought of all of this... dismissing, of course, the fact that I was in elementary school when all of this research was being done. Ha!
I just love this theory. Normally every week I carve out a few hours for my 517 reading and I dutifully peruse, skim, highlight, pencil my thoughts in the margins the articles that we are to read for the week. Not so with this theory - I (for lack of a better expression) inhaled the articles this week. Couldn't get enough of it. I'm thinking about being Lave or Collins when I grow up.
Even the name - cognitive apprenticeship - it just sounds sexy! And it makes so much SENSE. In the Collins piece they open their conclusion with "Apprenticeship is the way we learn most naturally." Thank you, God, for someone else putting this into print. But they don't totally discount other traditional, information transmission models - because (drum roll....) There is no one right way to do anything. Whew. Just had to get that out there.
Another interesting reflection is the cognitive dissonance that I'm experiencing as I try to "fit" the SL/CA model in my brain (thank you, Piaget). I consider myself to be a pretty good teacher/educator. And I'm one hell of a storyteller when it comes to direct, information transmission instruction. But I also feel like there are pieces of the SL/CA process that I used... for lack of a better way of putting it... naturally - meaning I was never "formally" trained to use these processes. I'm thinking in particular about the Model, Coach, Fade trilogy. But then something interesting happened as I was trying to figure out whether I was living the theory all this time or I was trying to make my own teaching fit the theory... I realized that how I learned the Model, Coach, Fade process was by observing it in other master teachers. Throw in the reflection and the post-game analysis as well - I never realized the value in the conversations I used to have after class with my teachers/professors where I became privy to their background and rationale for doing what they did in the classroom. I was a wee little apprentice!
Another component/observation that I found fascinating was that in each of the articles (realizing that I'm not going to realistically be able to talk about each one of them here) there is not that air/feeling that grades and "high achievement" (whatever that means) are lurking in the shadows. (The, "Oh yes, this is a nice theory alright... but what about the grades? What about the test scores?") I also appreciated the depth of the Collins article in particular for its providing detailed examples of the theory in action, thoughts on intrinsic emotion, as well as a framework for future study.
I do have some questions about the De Bruijn article's methodology - but I think some of there statements are fascinating. (Adult learners that are lower educated have a harder time self-directing their learning for instance.) Mainly - they were concerned that students (the adults) didn't take the "coaching" help by clicking the help button to get assistance. I wonder if assuming/imposing the structure of computer help button = coaching might be the problem... not that the students didn't want or wouldn't accept coaching. Also, they make a huge, broad, sweeping claim about lower-educated adult learners being generally passive. Um, if you sat me down with that program I'd probably be pretty "passive" as well. How much of this passiveness that they saw in their participants was culture driven/bound? How much was due to (maybe) a poorly chosen task? (I don't feel particularly motivated by being able to make change, for example.) I have more, but getting away from the point here.
Integrating this into a computer-mediated environment. Hrm. The two examples we read about (the money problem, the business course project) sounded like the software that was produced was costly and time-consuming. So I've been stuck trying to think of ways to get around having to "build" or create a whole other learning environment. Maybe SecondLife could be used as one of the tools to help students? YouTube could surely be used to store videos of relative material. I think it would largely depend on the nature of the skill set and the domain that we're talking about (duh, context) as we're considering possibly technologies to support the instruction. For online instruction, there would need to be a sort of hub... the availability for the student to "observe" (maybe via YouTube or a video-chatting software) the teacher/model... some form of two-way communication like chatting or conferencing to encourage the coaching... and then fading would come naturally... reflection and acquirement strategies could be used via a blog or Twitter account.
I've written too much - but this is pretty much a love note, so I'm okay with it. I'll have to continue to reflect on ways to use technology for SL/AC... but I think that might be a career-long problem. :) Wonder if I'll be as in love next week with Goal Based Scenarios...
Have a great weekend, all!
Well - this pretty much feels like my experience with all of these learning theories. I know we've only just scratched the surface of what we're going to learn this semester (actually, I think we're at halfway now that I really think about it) but it seems like with each passing week I like/love that week's theory moreso than the previous weeks'. And here we have my love affair with SL/CA (Situated Learning/Cognitive Apprenticeship). I say love affair because love is confusing and complicated and messy and deep ... and that's how I'm feeling right now about SL/CA. :)
One the one hand I was pseudo-relieved that all of this research had been completed providing a true, theoretically based alternative to "formal" schooling. (If you've read any of my previous posts you'll know that I have quite a bone to pick with traditional modes of education.) On the other hand - I was kind of pissed! Why hadn't I thought of all of this... dismissing, of course, the fact that I was in elementary school when all of this research was being done. Ha!
I just love this theory. Normally every week I carve out a few hours for my 517 reading and I dutifully peruse, skim, highlight, pencil my thoughts in the margins the articles that we are to read for the week. Not so with this theory - I (for lack of a better expression) inhaled the articles this week. Couldn't get enough of it. I'm thinking about being Lave or Collins when I grow up.
Even the name - cognitive apprenticeship - it just sounds sexy! And it makes so much SENSE. In the Collins piece they open their conclusion with "Apprenticeship is the way we learn most naturally." Thank you, God, for someone else putting this into print. But they don't totally discount other traditional, information transmission models - because (drum roll....) There is no one right way to do anything. Whew. Just had to get that out there.
Another interesting reflection is the cognitive dissonance that I'm experiencing as I try to "fit" the SL/CA model in my brain (thank you, Piaget). I consider myself to be a pretty good teacher/educator. And I'm one hell of a storyteller when it comes to direct, information transmission instruction. But I also feel like there are pieces of the SL/CA process that I used... for lack of a better way of putting it... naturally - meaning I was never "formally" trained to use these processes. I'm thinking in particular about the Model, Coach, Fade trilogy. But then something interesting happened as I was trying to figure out whether I was living the theory all this time or I was trying to make my own teaching fit the theory... I realized that how I learned the Model, Coach, Fade process was by observing it in other master teachers. Throw in the reflection and the post-game analysis as well - I never realized the value in the conversations I used to have after class with my teachers/professors where I became privy to their background and rationale for doing what they did in the classroom. I was a wee little apprentice!
Another component/observation that I found fascinating was that in each of the articles (realizing that I'm not going to realistically be able to talk about each one of them here) there is not that air/feeling that grades and "high achievement" (whatever that means) are lurking in the shadows. (The, "Oh yes, this is a nice theory alright... but what about the grades? What about the test scores?") I also appreciated the depth of the Collins article in particular for its providing detailed examples of the theory in action, thoughts on intrinsic emotion, as well as a framework for future study.
I do have some questions about the De Bruijn article's methodology - but I think some of there statements are fascinating. (Adult learners that are lower educated have a harder time self-directing their learning for instance.) Mainly - they were concerned that students (the adults) didn't take the "coaching" help by clicking the help button to get assistance. I wonder if assuming/imposing the structure of computer help button = coaching might be the problem... not that the students didn't want or wouldn't accept coaching. Also, they make a huge, broad, sweeping claim about lower-educated adult learners being generally passive. Um, if you sat me down with that program I'd probably be pretty "passive" as well. How much of this passiveness that they saw in their participants was culture driven/bound? How much was due to (maybe) a poorly chosen task? (I don't feel particularly motivated by being able to make change, for example.) I have more, but getting away from the point here.
Integrating this into a computer-mediated environment. Hrm. The two examples we read about (the money problem, the business course project) sounded like the software that was produced was costly and time-consuming. So I've been stuck trying to think of ways to get around having to "build" or create a whole other learning environment. Maybe SecondLife could be used as one of the tools to help students? YouTube could surely be used to store videos of relative material. I think it would largely depend on the nature of the skill set and the domain that we're talking about (duh, context) as we're considering possibly technologies to support the instruction. For online instruction, there would need to be a sort of hub... the availability for the student to "observe" (maybe via YouTube or a video-chatting software) the teacher/model... some form of two-way communication like chatting or conferencing to encourage the coaching... and then fading would come naturally... reflection and acquirement strategies could be used via a blog or Twitter account.
I've written too much - but this is pretty much a love note, so I'm okay with it. I'll have to continue to reflect on ways to use technology for SL/AC... but I think that might be a career-long problem. :) Wonder if I'll be as in love next week with Goal Based Scenarios...
Have a great weekend, all!
Friday, February 19, 2010
PBL: Teacher as transmitter of knowledge/information vs. facilitator of thinking/learning
I have to admit - I find the theory for the week, the PBL, pretty alluring. I found myself wrapped up in its utter uniqueness. I mean, for some reason the earlier theories felt familiar and homey... but for me this PBL, this based on problems and role-playing solutions, felt kind of racy to me. In a good way, of course. :)
I appreciated the background/application pieces this week from the medical field as I think that really gives us a good perspective on this model. And honestly, it's how I'll remember this theory. My mind wanders to my experiences teaching a "mock" lesson during my methods courses before student teaching. I know that PBL has its basis in the group work, and my mock lessons were just little ol' me, though.
Sidenote - how interesting were the medical articles, talking about their eTalk and the whole new room/lab they created for this new and experimental type of instruction. I had one of those moments where I wondered what the authors would have thought if they could have fast-forwarded 15 years later. Wow, 15 years. Didn't realize how long it was until I just typed it.
I think the piece weighing the pros/cons/research on PBL (come on, they were leaning towards the pro side a little) - the one by Hung, Bailey, and Jonassen - was quite nice. Quite an easier read, if I do say so myself, much more "accessible" and some interesting ideas and arguments. While I do love the PBL, I'm not 100% sold on their reasoning/rationale in the piece. That's another post altogether.
This theory, more than the others for me I think, requires the redefining of the role of "instructor" - yay! Cooperative learning, yea a little bit. But to truly present students (of any age) with a "real" problem and give them the tools to solve it (or they go after them themselves) - that's the racy part. Love it. I'd love to see myself more in the role of facilitator of learning ... even though I love myself as the transmitter of knowledge, I can't lie. ;)
Accomplishing this via technology is where I'm a bit stumped. And I'm going to have to go to my peers for help on this one. I can see how you can provide a common space or meeting ground like Elluminate or GoogleWave or something like that (wikis too, maybe) for a group engaged in PBL... and then let them hunt for the tools/websites/research articles they'll need... and then have them re-engage online... but is that too simplistic?
My group met this week to really nail down our next module and we considered only for a fleeting moment doing our module using PBL... but quickly steered in another direction because we felt like PBL required SO MUCH preparation - or at least that's what it seemed like. I mean - those medical guys had to build a whole new learning center...
And hell yeah for the depth vs breadth. I'm in the depth camp. Subject matter/disciplines are holographic by definition, thus by studying a few components you can grasp the whole. (Plus, you can never realistically teach ALL of a subject matter... or we'd all be out of a job. :))
Here's an idea... what if a group using PBL used something like Twitter to communicate with each other - and part of their process is to engage "others" along the way to their solution? Maybe they don't "meet officially on Twitter - but in the course of their normal day they use Twitter to continue the ongoing discussion...
Or set up a Ning for the group to work together in...
Okay, the ideas are starting to flow more now. Will have to read my peers' posts tomorrow. Onward! Enjoy the weekend!
I appreciated the background/application pieces this week from the medical field as I think that really gives us a good perspective on this model. And honestly, it's how I'll remember this theory. My mind wanders to my experiences teaching a "mock" lesson during my methods courses before student teaching. I know that PBL has its basis in the group work, and my mock lessons were just little ol' me, though.
Sidenote - how interesting were the medical articles, talking about their eTalk and the whole new room/lab they created for this new and experimental type of instruction. I had one of those moments where I wondered what the authors would have thought if they could have fast-forwarded 15 years later. Wow, 15 years. Didn't realize how long it was until I just typed it.
I think the piece weighing the pros/cons/research on PBL (come on, they were leaning towards the pro side a little) - the one by Hung, Bailey, and Jonassen - was quite nice. Quite an easier read, if I do say so myself, much more "accessible" and some interesting ideas and arguments. While I do love the PBL, I'm not 100% sold on their reasoning/rationale in the piece. That's another post altogether.
This theory, more than the others for me I think, requires the redefining of the role of "instructor" - yay! Cooperative learning, yea a little bit. But to truly present students (of any age) with a "real" problem and give them the tools to solve it (or they go after them themselves) - that's the racy part. Love it. I'd love to see myself more in the role of facilitator of learning ... even though I love myself as the transmitter of knowledge, I can't lie. ;)
Accomplishing this via technology is where I'm a bit stumped. And I'm going to have to go to my peers for help on this one. I can see how you can provide a common space or meeting ground like Elluminate or GoogleWave or something like that (wikis too, maybe) for a group engaged in PBL... and then let them hunt for the tools/websites/research articles they'll need... and then have them re-engage online... but is that too simplistic?
My group met this week to really nail down our next module and we considered only for a fleeting moment doing our module using PBL... but quickly steered in another direction because we felt like PBL required SO MUCH preparation - or at least that's what it seemed like. I mean - those medical guys had to build a whole new learning center...
And hell yeah for the depth vs breadth. I'm in the depth camp. Subject matter/disciplines are holographic by definition, thus by studying a few components you can grasp the whole. (Plus, you can never realistically teach ALL of a subject matter... or we'd all be out of a job. :))
Here's an idea... what if a group using PBL used something like Twitter to communicate with each other - and part of their process is to engage "others" along the way to their solution? Maybe they don't "meet officially on Twitter - but in the course of their normal day they use Twitter to continue the ongoing discussion...
Or set up a Ning for the group to work together in...
Okay, the ideas are starting to flow more now. Will have to read my peers' posts tomorrow. Onward! Enjoy the weekend!
Sunday, February 14, 2010
"Learning, like living, is inherently social" - Cooperative Learning
I'm finding that if I constantly search for the on-liner in these articles that we have to read, week by week, I'm constantly looking for the hook - the phrase that will help me remember these theories long after I've completed the requirements of the course. I also like to think that I might have found the "thesis" of the articles. ;) But that is more likely wishful thinking.
I'm honestly going to have to refresh myself on the GD theory - because my brain seems to have collapsed much of CL & GD (I also like to come up with little acronyms because it helps me to type faster...) together. It's almost as if GD could be a component of CL, really. But enough of that... on to CL.
First and foremost, YAY for CL! I think I might have appreciate most the Johnson, Johnson, & Smith article surveying (or trumpeting/sounding the rallying call) CL theory, research and practice. I know I enjoyed their exposition on the theoretical side of things.
There's a line in the article - "Cooperative learners cognitively rehearse and restructure information to retain it in memory and incorporate it into existing cognitive structures." That's some sexy stuff right there - and I used to always talk about Piaget and Vygotsky with my middle school students... I just love brain research.
Back to CL. So, in sum, CL = Good. That's what all of the articles point to. And, here we're at another one of those Matthew moments when I'm realizing that someone did 90 years of research to find out that ... drum roll ... working together is better than working alone. (Simplified explanation of course - and all due respect to researchers for I aim to become one of them!) But hey, you have to laugh at yourself a bit.
There are a few things that I want to mention that stirred me a bit, however. One of the JJS (Johnson, Johnson, and Smith) points is that, "For a learning situation to be cooperative, students must believe that they sink or swim together." Now - I get the sentiment, I've heard the cliched phrase before and have probably used it before. What I want to point out is two-fold. One is that even in a team there is the implied other - other teams. I worry that some teachers use CL to get away from individualistic competition in the classroom... only to actually turn it into a macroscopic version of competition between teams. The second point, and this is part of a longer, larger tirade, is that there is inherent in the imagery and vocabulary of the phrase that implies that survival is somehow inextricably tied to completion of the CL activity. (See what I mean? I'm splitting hairs here - but we did just read three articles espousing on the philosophy of CL... I think it's a point worth exploring.)
Debunking for a minute. Survival not being connected to the successful completion of CL activity. While all teachers would like to believe that all students put their assignments and readings first, often this is not true. Thus, we try (using grades, threats, etc.) to get them to do what we want - which is complete our assignments to the best of their ability. But if they don't do the assignment (or do a poor job), and therefore get a "bad" grade, all is not lost. They won't end up homeless and ultimately reach the end of their lives if they do not successfully complete the assignment.
Now that that is out of the way there is a much larger fish to fry. Grades. Now - I realize I might make myself incredibly unpopular with this next bit, so just fast forward if you're worried.
I worked in an environment that gave no grades to children - none. We can discuss at a later date how we provided accurate feedback to students.
There's the section in the JJS article that talks about past studies. First thing on the top of the list that was studies was student achievement/academic success, which means grades. Grades that were, quite frankly, made up out of thin air. And as objective as we'd like to make these "grades" they're not. So it is incredibly frustrating for me to see reports based upon student grades. Especially with something as important as CL. How do you test self-esteem? I mean really - I know there are tests out there, but seriously. How do you quantify increased relationships between peers? "Members of cooperative groups also became more socially skilled than do students working competitively or individualistically." Um... no way. Really?
(Just so we're clear, I'm not trying to be critical in an angry or conflictual way - merely some healthy, academic critiquing.)
I appreciated the piece by the group of professors from NCSU. Have been reading a lot of literature lately, nice to see something from State... and about Engineering and CL (and, the authors are from differing departments! How nice to see!)
But my true shout out goes to the Millis article. Citation after citation I find myself trying to remember all of these important names - the big wigs of this theory and that - and for the first time in this article (M's) I knew two of them off the bat! (Citations that is.) One is Eric Jensen who did all of the brain research and wrote a couple of books about it and the other is Parker J. Palmer - a Quaker who also happens to be an author and professor of sociology/education. Go Millis! In fact, the title for this post comes from her article.
You should see my notes from reading her article... let's just say lots of "YES!" in the margins.
And "deep learning" - oooh, shivers down my spine! (Motivational context, Learner activity, interaction with others, well-structured knowledge base) LOVE IT.
Trying to bring this plane in for a landing soon. Online? Gee, I don't know. I was thinking about blogs first of all - but then about using GoogleWave because it could be more real-time. However, now that I think about it, you might be able to think through a lesson enough to use Elluminate. Have groups meet via Elluminate to work together.
I'm off to think about how to get deep learning via CL online. And read my peers' thoughts. Have a great week!
I'm honestly going to have to refresh myself on the GD theory - because my brain seems to have collapsed much of CL & GD (I also like to come up with little acronyms because it helps me to type faster...) together. It's almost as if GD could be a component of CL, really. But enough of that... on to CL.
First and foremost, YAY for CL! I think I might have appreciate most the Johnson, Johnson, & Smith article surveying (or trumpeting/sounding the rallying call) CL theory, research and practice. I know I enjoyed their exposition on the theoretical side of things.
There's a line in the article - "Cooperative learners cognitively rehearse and restructure information to retain it in memory and incorporate it into existing cognitive structures." That's some sexy stuff right there - and I used to always talk about Piaget and Vygotsky with my middle school students... I just love brain research.
Back to CL. So, in sum, CL = Good. That's what all of the articles point to. And, here we're at another one of those Matthew moments when I'm realizing that someone did 90 years of research to find out that ... drum roll ... working together is better than working alone. (Simplified explanation of course - and all due respect to researchers for I aim to become one of them!) But hey, you have to laugh at yourself a bit.
There are a few things that I want to mention that stirred me a bit, however. One of the JJS (Johnson, Johnson, and Smith) points is that, "For a learning situation to be cooperative, students must believe that they sink or swim together." Now - I get the sentiment, I've heard the cliched phrase before and have probably used it before. What I want to point out is two-fold. One is that even in a team there is the implied other - other teams. I worry that some teachers use CL to get away from individualistic competition in the classroom... only to actually turn it into a macroscopic version of competition between teams. The second point, and this is part of a longer, larger tirade, is that there is inherent in the imagery and vocabulary of the phrase that implies that survival is somehow inextricably tied to completion of the CL activity. (See what I mean? I'm splitting hairs here - but we did just read three articles espousing on the philosophy of CL... I think it's a point worth exploring.)
Debunking for a minute. Survival not being connected to the successful completion of CL activity. While all teachers would like to believe that all students put their assignments and readings first, often this is not true. Thus, we try (using grades, threats, etc.) to get them to do what we want - which is complete our assignments to the best of their ability. But if they don't do the assignment (or do a poor job), and therefore get a "bad" grade, all is not lost. They won't end up homeless and ultimately reach the end of their lives if they do not successfully complete the assignment.
Now that that is out of the way there is a much larger fish to fry. Grades. Now - I realize I might make myself incredibly unpopular with this next bit, so just fast forward if you're worried.
I worked in an environment that gave no grades to children - none. We can discuss at a later date how we provided accurate feedback to students.
There's the section in the JJS article that talks about past studies. First thing on the top of the list that was studies was student achievement/academic success, which means grades. Grades that were, quite frankly, made up out of thin air. And as objective as we'd like to make these "grades" they're not. So it is incredibly frustrating for me to see reports based upon student grades. Especially with something as important as CL. How do you test self-esteem? I mean really - I know there are tests out there, but seriously. How do you quantify increased relationships between peers? "Members of cooperative groups also became more socially skilled than do students working competitively or individualistically." Um... no way. Really?
(Just so we're clear, I'm not trying to be critical in an angry or conflictual way - merely some healthy, academic critiquing.)
I appreciated the piece by the group of professors from NCSU. Have been reading a lot of literature lately, nice to see something from State... and about Engineering and CL (and, the authors are from differing departments! How nice to see!)
But my true shout out goes to the Millis article. Citation after citation I find myself trying to remember all of these important names - the big wigs of this theory and that - and for the first time in this article (M's) I knew two of them off the bat! (Citations that is.) One is Eric Jensen who did all of the brain research and wrote a couple of books about it and the other is Parker J. Palmer - a Quaker who also happens to be an author and professor of sociology/education. Go Millis! In fact, the title for this post comes from her article.
You should see my notes from reading her article... let's just say lots of "YES!" in the margins.
And "deep learning" - oooh, shivers down my spine! (Motivational context, Learner activity, interaction with others, well-structured knowledge base) LOVE IT.
Trying to bring this plane in for a landing soon. Online? Gee, I don't know. I was thinking about blogs first of all - but then about using GoogleWave because it could be more real-time. However, now that I think about it, you might be able to think through a lesson enough to use Elluminate. Have groups meet via Elluminate to work together.
I'm off to think about how to get deep learning via CL online. And read my peers' thoughts. Have a great week!
Sunday, February 7, 2010
The "monster" or "miracle" of group work - Guided Design Learning Strategy
I have to admit that I was a little excited by this week's work with Guided Design (hereafter referred to as GD). Hear me correctly - there are fabulous qualities and appropriate venues for PSI and AT, but GD feels a little more... I don't know, racy? :)
At first glance, I love this theory. I love the group work, I love the stating of the problem and laying out the goals and strategies and the whole process of it. I also (in the middle of my love-fest) had one of those -- "Wow, it took research to prove something we kinda already 'knew'..." -- moments. Of course (in general) people work better together than separately or apart. Of course the GD process is an effective process. I appreciated in the Wilson article the first table showing the different interpretations/iterations of the process (analysis or decision making). I say of course it's an effective process - because if you look at the first step of all of the models in the Wilson piece - the first step is some variation on "define the problem." Seems that, most of the time, folks can spin and spin and spin and not get anywhere because they haven't done an effective job defining the problem. Once the problem has truly been adequately defined... most of the hard work is done.
Instruction wise - from my own experience as a student - wow! How many group projects have I been in that have used GD! I mean really, at least once or twice in each one of my undergraduate courses. And (from the Wilson article again) I've done that survivor-ish group problem before in a psychology course I believe. My group did not survive. ;)
I think that this is a fairly useful method of instruction - for some types of learning and learners. There's a note in the Trivette piece... the 5th point about GD creating the space to "individualize to the learner's style" - and I think here's where it broke down for me in practice (me as a student, here). The professors that used this method (knowingly or not) did not take into consideration how I learn best! Interestingly enough... the next sentence after the individualized instruction is "The goal of guided design is not to get the correct answer, but to know the process by which on gathers information, processes information, and arrives at an acceptable solution." Doesn't this then counter Wilson's experiment... with the survivors and the "one right way" to ensure survival?? (I love, by the way, that the survival game is the basis on this research - tongue in cheek.) Just a pondering...
I'm intrigued and puzzled a bit as I consider whether or not GD would work well in today's 2.0 environment. Feeling myself out... if I was in a group and given a problem (literally a problem, not just a normal old group assignment) - I'd want to roll up my sleeves and get face to face in a room with my group and have at it! Don't know if I could get that same feeling or feel as effective in a chat room. Hm.
But all the same, I could see being in a small group and using some form of video-conferencing (like iChat on the Mac where I can video chat with up to 3 other people) and being able to meet "virtually" in that way. There's always Elluminate that could be used... you could also use some form of document creation software (online) like GoogleDocs where every member of the group could work on defining the problem, making a plan, solutions, evaluating - synchronously. You could also do it on a wiki I guess - I'd just want to be careful that group members didn't accidently overwrite each others' work. (By the way, does anyone know if PBWiki and Wikispaces have figured out a fix for that? Other than warning you... I've been away from wikis for a few months now...)
The only article I've not mentioned is the Casada & DeShazer article. Hm. I think there methods show that GD works quite nicely in the classroom - when done well and explained enough, as they note. Am going to have to turn to my peers now to see what they've got to say on this theory...
Until next week!
At first glance, I love this theory. I love the group work, I love the stating of the problem and laying out the goals and strategies and the whole process of it. I also (in the middle of my love-fest) had one of those -- "Wow, it took research to prove something we kinda already 'knew'..." -- moments. Of course (in general) people work better together than separately or apart. Of course the GD process is an effective process. I appreciated in the Wilson article the first table showing the different interpretations/iterations of the process (analysis or decision making). I say of course it's an effective process - because if you look at the first step of all of the models in the Wilson piece - the first step is some variation on "define the problem." Seems that, most of the time, folks can spin and spin and spin and not get anywhere because they haven't done an effective job defining the problem. Once the problem has truly been adequately defined... most of the hard work is done.
Instruction wise - from my own experience as a student - wow! How many group projects have I been in that have used GD! I mean really, at least once or twice in each one of my undergraduate courses. And (from the Wilson article again) I've done that survivor-ish group problem before in a psychology course I believe. My group did not survive. ;)
I think that this is a fairly useful method of instruction - for some types of learning and learners. There's a note in the Trivette piece... the 5th point about GD creating the space to "individualize to the learner's style" - and I think here's where it broke down for me in practice (me as a student, here). The professors that used this method (knowingly or not) did not take into consideration how I learn best! Interestingly enough... the next sentence after the individualized instruction is "The goal of guided design is not to get the correct answer, but to know the process by which on gathers information, processes information, and arrives at an acceptable solution." Doesn't this then counter Wilson's experiment... with the survivors and the "one right way" to ensure survival?? (I love, by the way, that the survival game is the basis on this research - tongue in cheek.) Just a pondering...
I'm intrigued and puzzled a bit as I consider whether or not GD would work well in today's 2.0 environment. Feeling myself out... if I was in a group and given a problem (literally a problem, not just a normal old group assignment) - I'd want to roll up my sleeves and get face to face in a room with my group and have at it! Don't know if I could get that same feeling or feel as effective in a chat room. Hm.
But all the same, I could see being in a small group and using some form of video-conferencing (like iChat on the Mac where I can video chat with up to 3 other people) and being able to meet "virtually" in that way. There's always Elluminate that could be used... you could also use some form of document creation software (online) like GoogleDocs where every member of the group could work on defining the problem, making a plan, solutions, evaluating - synchronously. You could also do it on a wiki I guess - I'd just want to be careful that group members didn't accidently overwrite each others' work. (By the way, does anyone know if PBWiki and Wikispaces have figured out a fix for that? Other than warning you... I've been away from wikis for a few months now...)
The only article I've not mentioned is the Casada & DeShazer article. Hm. I think there methods show that GD works quite nicely in the classroom - when done well and explained enough, as they note. Am going to have to turn to my peers now to see what they've got to say on this theory...
Until next week!
Friday, January 29, 2010
Where is information? What does it mean to educate?
I was just reading my peer's blog and it stirred something in me that I've been mulling over these past few weeks/months.
Where does information live? Is it in a book? Is it online? Is there a difference between the "realness" of something if its on a webpage versus in print? Are there differences between wikis and blogs as well as books and newspapers as to what is real?
These first two models that we've been studying... PSI (Keller) and the AT Approach... they both have at the foundation of their models that information exists "out there" (somewhere) and I (the teacher/student) must get it "in here" (me pointing to my brain).
I don't disagree that this interpretation/philosophy does indeed work from time to time... my issue is that many believe it's the only way to view learning, teaching, educating, etc.
These two plans are great for getting information from out there into the brain. Is that all it's about though?
Just some some mental ramblings...
Where does information live? Is it in a book? Is it online? Is there a difference between the "realness" of something if its on a webpage versus in print? Are there differences between wikis and blogs as well as books and newspapers as to what is real?
These first two models that we've been studying... PSI (Keller) and the AT Approach... they both have at the foundation of their models that information exists "out there" (somewhere) and I (the teacher/student) must get it "in here" (me pointing to my brain).
I don't disagree that this interpretation/philosophy does indeed work from time to time... my issue is that many believe it's the only way to view learning, teaching, educating, etc.
These two plans are great for getting information from out there into the brain. Is that all it's about though?
Just some some mental ramblings...
"Education for all vs. education for each" - The Audio-Tutorial Approach (Kullk, Kullk, & Cohen)
I've just been rereading my notes to refresh myself for this posting - and came across the quote that I've used as my title. It seems so strange to me that back in the 1960s folks were just starting to figure out that maybe, just maybe, individualized instruction was the way to go. And then, to my horror, realize as I consider classrooms of today that we still haven't really reached that ideal that K. Patricia Cross set out for education! Something to think about.
To be honest when I first saw the title of the approach for this week, I kind of laughed to myself. It seems so natural - that it almost seemed comical that someone "thought it up" or "developed it" one day. So much so that - yes I know this may say something about me - when I first started to read the article I expected there to be something in there about iPods and podcasting. And yes, I knew the publication date was 1979. I guess I've been drinking too much of the Apple Kool-aid!
I get the AT approach. I can also see how it was revolutionary for its time. As I started to really get into the research I was intrigued by the fact that I had never heard of it when I was in undergrad career - either by reading about it or by experiencing it. Especially considering what technology could do for this.
I took a course last semester and the professor (for technical reasons) issued his lectures as podcasts - and every week we had to download and listen to them and then gather on a course blog to discuss our readings and the lecture. Now, it's not AT exactly... but its close given the technology that we have available to us now.
So, could this method be applied today? Absolutely. A laptop and your good to go. You don't even have to use special software - there are free screencasting apps and voice recorders out there that could facilitate your audio. Then find a location to house your files... Google, a wiki, wherever. Create some sort of module to facilitate and present the audio files - the "lab" is no longer needed physically, you can have a virtual lab - the internet! Finally, set up study session groups via online means... chatting, Google Wave, Elluminate, what not. You would need to be mindful about having to keep your stuff up-to-date... but that's part of being in this field. :)
I'm actually in this place right now where my research is about to turn down the road towards using online, audio tutorials for language learning. So - it's pretty exciting that we're now talking about the AT approach!
Off now to peruse my colleagues' blogs. Excited to see what they have to share.
To be honest when I first saw the title of the approach for this week, I kind of laughed to myself. It seems so natural - that it almost seemed comical that someone "thought it up" or "developed it" one day. So much so that - yes I know this may say something about me - when I first started to read the article I expected there to be something in there about iPods and podcasting. And yes, I knew the publication date was 1979. I guess I've been drinking too much of the Apple Kool-aid!
I get the AT approach. I can also see how it was revolutionary for its time. As I started to really get into the research I was intrigued by the fact that I had never heard of it when I was in undergrad career - either by reading about it or by experiencing it. Especially considering what technology could do for this.
I took a course last semester and the professor (for technical reasons) issued his lectures as podcasts - and every week we had to download and listen to them and then gather on a course blog to discuss our readings and the lecture. Now, it's not AT exactly... but its close given the technology that we have available to us now.
So, could this method be applied today? Absolutely. A laptop and your good to go. You don't even have to use special software - there are free screencasting apps and voice recorders out there that could facilitate your audio. Then find a location to house your files... Google, a wiki, wherever. Create some sort of module to facilitate and present the audio files - the "lab" is no longer needed physically, you can have a virtual lab - the internet! Finally, set up study session groups via online means... chatting, Google Wave, Elluminate, what not. You would need to be mindful about having to keep your stuff up-to-date... but that's part of being in this field. :)
I'm actually in this place right now where my research is about to turn down the road towards using online, audio tutorials for language learning. So - it's pretty exciting that we're now talking about the AT approach!
Off now to peruse my colleagues' blogs. Excited to see what they have to share.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Learning is basically an asynchronous, creative adventure: Davis & Ragsdell - The Keller Plan (PSI)
Have just finished reading over the Davis article, the article for the week. My first impressions are about it's readability. Not sure if that's something that we are to talk about on our blogs, but I'm going to anyway. Having spent a semester deep in philosophical inquiry and reading (it was a fun but hard Fall 2009!) - a practical piece of writing like this was quite enjoyable. Straight and to the point.
Overall I like this learning theory, the PSI. I really appreciate the sentiment expressed by the authors nearing the end of the second section - "Learning is basically an asynchronous, creative adventure." Hell yeah! Thank goodness someone else has said this! But I can't help but notice something interesting and I'm wondering if my classmates noted this as well.
There is a note in the description of the model - and I think Kevin mentioned this in the lecture - that the professor oversees the course but the weekly (or whatever time frame there is) meetings are arranged by teaching assistants or graduate students. Grading (I think) is to be done by these folks as well. As I'm looking back over my notes, it strikes me as interesting that two professors invented a model of instruction where they were the creators and somewhat the deliver-ers (depending on the methods of course), yet there exists the possibility that teaching assistants/grad students would be doing a majority of the footwork. Just an observation. :)
I see in this model much of the online instruction that I have participated in in my life. I took an English course that took this model and employed it via email. A course I took last semester used a blog. Other technologies could easily be used in this model... wikis, an easy web-editor like Google Sites, Moodle/Vista/some other CMS, and maybe even a Google Wave? Maybe a bit too early to tell on the Google Wave!
I can see using this model in future instruction - depending on the students, environment, and subject matter. I can also see how this model could be the foundation for many other models due to its simplistic nature (not that this is a bad thing).
Another observation - you can read the date on the article. Meaning - I just checked quickly and wasn't able to locate the publication date on the article but you can "read" based on its sources and the authors' choice of vocabulary that this is a bit dated. I wonder where this engineering coursework/development is now...
Do others share my experiences with PSI?
Overall I like this learning theory, the PSI. I really appreciate the sentiment expressed by the authors nearing the end of the second section - "Learning is basically an asynchronous, creative adventure." Hell yeah! Thank goodness someone else has said this! But I can't help but notice something interesting and I'm wondering if my classmates noted this as well.
There is a note in the description of the model - and I think Kevin mentioned this in the lecture - that the professor oversees the course but the weekly (or whatever time frame there is) meetings are arranged by teaching assistants or graduate students. Grading (I think) is to be done by these folks as well. As I'm looking back over my notes, it strikes me as interesting that two professors invented a model of instruction where they were the creators and somewhat the deliver-ers (depending on the methods of course), yet there exists the possibility that teaching assistants/grad students would be doing a majority of the footwork. Just an observation. :)
I see in this model much of the online instruction that I have participated in in my life. I took an English course that took this model and employed it via email. A course I took last semester used a blog. Other technologies could easily be used in this model... wikis, an easy web-editor like Google Sites, Moodle/Vista/some other CMS, and maybe even a Google Wave? Maybe a bit too early to tell on the Google Wave!
I can see using this model in future instruction - depending on the students, environment, and subject matter. I can also see how this model could be the foundation for many other models due to its simplistic nature (not that this is a bad thing).
Another observation - you can read the date on the article. Meaning - I just checked quickly and wasn't able to locate the publication date on the article but you can "read" based on its sources and the authors' choice of vocabulary that this is a bit dated. I wonder where this engineering coursework/development is now...
Do others share my experiences with PSI?
Monday, January 18, 2010
Copyrighting
Am busy working through the article on copyrighting and I'm appreciating the authors' clear and no-fuss tone. I still feel like issues of copyrighting/trademarking/patenting can get sticky - and too often it seems like common sense loses out to folks who have questionable morals when it comes to ownership and plagiarism.
I only have the final examples (from the last few pages) to finish reading. Will move to get those complete today.
I only have the final examples (from the last few pages) to finish reading. Will move to get those complete today.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Hm. Gagne's Nine Events of Instruction
Just looking over http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art3_3.htm - my first real exposure to this theory.
How did I graduate with an undergraduate degree in education and never hear of this?
Or maybe I did and I forgot...
The theory makes sense though. I'm thinking back through how I teach a lesson - or whenever I lead a presentation - all of those steps are there. I'm going to have to process this some more...
How did I graduate with an undergraduate degree in education and never hear of this?
Or maybe I did and I forgot...
The theory makes sense though. I'm thinking back through how I teach a lesson - or whenever I lead a presentation - all of those steps are there. I'm going to have to process this some more...
Hello blog and world!
Looking forward to sharing my thoughts and reflections on my readings in ECI 517. Onward!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
