"Majority of the value of educational experiences comes from the vale added through interactions with human beings."

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!

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!

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!