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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
