Non-traditional assignments

I teach writing and work in a writing center, so I am, of course, quite comfortable with what a colleague dismissively calls "alphabet soup." (He means words and sentences. Groan.) I might argue that "writing" is more important than ever in some ways-- it still amazes me that young people would rather text than talk on the phone, but I'd rather email than talk on the phone, and I'd probably text if I didn't have really clumsy thumbs and lamentably good touch-typing (ALL fingers) habits. There's something about the distance afforded by that alphabet soup, the a-synchronicity of it, the postponement of interaction, that makes it perpetually appealing.

Anyway, in my advising work, I'm placed in different online classrooms every week to help the students with their writing assignments. What this affords me is a quite broad view of how online courses are being conducted in different disciplines and across different levels. (I'm mostly in the undergraduate courses, and mostly upper-level these days.) And something I've been noticing is that a couple years ago, there was a marked tendency to offer students a choice of assignments, one choice being traditional (usually a research paper), and one being non-traditional (usually something more visual-- a Powerpoint, a video, a recording of the student doing a speech). In my own classes, word came down from the department that we too were supposed to offer students the choice between the usual discussion forum posts and "a PowerPoint presentation or Youtube video answering the prompt."

It was a resounding failure. In my own classes, no one went to the trouble of creating a Powerpoint to answer a discussion forum prompt. And while two did choose to make videos instead of the final paper-- thinking it would be easier-- ended up with unimpressive products which didn't fulfill any of the research and analysis part of the "researched analysis project" project. So while they probably enjoyed the 45 minutes they spent on their films, they didn't like the grades they got and complained. I sympathized, but really, it's hard to look at a 20-page research paper with 15 sources and then at a 6-minute video of nature photographs set to a emo soundtrack with 35 words of captioning and think they deserve the same grade.

This year I've noticed that none of those courses that two years ago offered alternatives to writing a paper are still doing it. The end project of all the classes is back to being some arrangement of alphabet soup. (Of course, I'm a writing advisor, so I'm not placed in courses where there's no writing project.)

Why? I'm glad of it really. I think it's certainly possible for students to do effective jobs with other media, but they probably haven't been taught those skills academically. And the resources it takes to, say, do a documentary film about the failure of the bondrating agencies in the 2008 bank crisis simply aren't available to most students the way the library and their word-processor are-- it's not just easier to write a research paper. It's -possible--, achievable, to students. The same level of video products simply is not, no matter how many free apps are out there.

That's one of the problems-- it's easy to do these alternatives badly, and hard to do them well. And no one's really teaching the students to do these things.  Powerpoint's been around forever-- I remember my now-grown kids doing Powerpoints in grade school-- and it's useful enough. I use it occasionally in my other job (I do writing workshops around the country), but not all that much because of the lighting (you turn the lights down, and workshoppers can't read their own work) and because of the tendency to read off the darned slides rather than actually teaching.  But there's this assumption that Powerpoint is so intuitive that students will just pick it up and do it well, like they do with Tumblr or Pinterest. And I don't think it works that way, and anyway, the medium is NOT the message-- there still has to be content. Research. Ideas.

One problem is that there is no purpose being defined usually, and no audience, so there's no real way of getting an idea of what is needed, what will be sufficient, what level of information is needed, how deep the analysis. "Do a video about a problem and solution" tends to get really basic topics like "how to train your dog to beg." Just the tradition of the research paper is enough to steer students away from thinking they can get away with that in text.

I'm not sold on the idea that other-media assignments can be assigned and assessed on the same plane as a research paper. But I think the first step is deciding that the alternative assignment must be as well-thought out and useful as the research paper is. It's not enough that it's a video or a Powerpoint-- it has to be that because this is the best way to present this material. And also, all the academic standards still have to be established and met. If this is a research project, the alternative assignment must require the same level of research. If it's supposed to be analytical, there must be some development and logic involved.

Over and over, we keep making this mistake-- treating alternatives as just tricks, gimmicks, assuming multimedia is good simply for multimedia's stake. Like a talking dog-- just worthwhile in and of itself.  But it's not. It's a medium. It's just pixels on screen unless something intervenes and makes it more meaningful. The content, the organization, the focus, the research, all still have to be there. After all, the point of research paper assignments, even writing assignments, isn't to teach students how to type. And the purpose of alternative-media assignments shouldn't be just to teach them how to Youtube.

We're simultaneously trivializing and deifying "the alternative"-- showing it too much fear and not enough respect.

I think I might deal with this in my constructivist assignment.

Digital generation.

Tapscott, Don. (1998). Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. New York: McGraw Hill. 

That's so early! So much has changed so fast since 1998.

My husband and I joke that we're from the "mechanical generation," where Newton's laws still applied, no action without a reaction, etc.  And you could, without much effort, figure out what action caused the reaction, because they were similar-- the piston turns the axle which turns the wheel. Simple. The gasoline burns and the energy makes the piston turn. Etc.

I was just in Wells (UK) where in the cathedral there's the oldest still-working clock in Europe. (Very cute--

That's 14th Century. The little knights you see above the face? When the quarter hour strikes, they came out and clash their swords. 

Anyway, even I can figure out how the clock works, with the weights in the casement under the face gradually shifting and all that. Very mechanical. Everything's got a cause that can be determined.

But the electronic generation-- my kids don't have that need to have a cause that fits the effects. I want to know why my MP-3 player makes me press four buttons (not one of them saying "start"-- you know, they're "menu" and "select" and anyway, none of the names are on the MP-3 player... I have to look up the manual online to see what they are!) in a certain order to get the song I want. They don't mind. They just give in and do it the way they're told. Or they push buttons until something happens. "Everything doesn't have to make sense, Mom!" my younger son said the other day. "That's such a Boomer thing."

Cough.

But this might account for the deficit I've seen the last decade in students who have an automatic understanding of cause and effect. Maybe now that's something they really have to be taught.

(Then again, this is a very good reason for all children to learn how to cook-- that'll teach 'em cause and effect.)

Anyway, in DE, we're dealing with the electronics, where cause doesn't necessarily lead logically to effect. (You know, the old "control alt delete" thing? That's how you get a computer to reset? Because there's no reset button?)

It means that we can't fix our cars ourselves anymore. (Not that I ever did, but my brother did.) What does it mean for the classroom? We have about 100 times more access and apps to help learning. Are we changed cognitively? Have we gained and/or lost? What?

Cognitive loss-gain

My dad was for many years a math education professor at Virginia Tech, and he taught me how to use a slide rule and all that, and frankly, I was really glad when the calculator was invented! (I never did really "get" the slide rule.) My parents ran right out and bought that first Texas Instrument calculator sold to consumers. I remember it was $125. And you know it could probably add and subtract. <G>

Anyway, I remember saying to him how there has to be some cognitive loss that comes because children don't have to really learn arithmetic (I know it's still taught, but let's face it-- as soon as they're allowed, kids will be resorting like the rest of us to calculators). And he said he remembered when computerized cash registers came in, the ones that tell you how much change is due, and that he was sure something would be lost cognitively when no one learned to count backwards to make change. (You remember-- $10 given for a $5.52 bill... you counted out the four dollar bills to get down to $6, and then the change to get down to .52.) But he then shrugged and said, "Didn't seem to matter. The cashiers learned some new process instead. The specific process might not matter as much as the whole forging new neural pathways activity."

"Something's lost but something's gained," I guess.

But are there losses? Are there things we used to learn from doing that we don't learn because we don't have to do that anymore? (As I said, I think every child should have to learn to cook. Lots of cognitive skills there that won't happen if we all just put things in the microwave. :)

But is there room in the human brain for all those old lessons AND how to program our cell phone?

Alicia

Reading for cognitive assignment:

Learning Theories 

• The Technological Revolution
• The Spectrum of Learning Theories
• Behaviorism
• Constructivism
• Fitting the Other Theories into the Spectrum
• Theory of Multiple Intelligence
• Learning Theories and the Brain
• Brain Structures
• Implications for Learning Theory
• Implications for Multimedia
• References

By Darren Forrester & Noel Jantzie

Kilde: http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/%7Egnjantzi/learning_theories.htm

Why are Canadians so ahead on online ed, I ask you? Of course, the distances in Canada are so great, they've probably always had some form of distance ed.

Anyway, here's what I'm getting from reading this. I can use some of the multimedia implications part in the cognitive assignment. I'm going to do "using advertisements to teach analysis," and part of it will be finding an ad on the Internet. That's not multimedia, is it? Well, I think I'll also have them maybe get an app that lets them "trace" the composition of the ad online and then post that as a video in class == to help them figure out how the picture is composed. 

What else? I hate multimedia for the sake of multimedia, been there, done that, waste of time. If there isn't a good pedagogical reason to use video, don't waste the bandwidth.   Forrester and Jantzie (2009) say:

"Multimedia, at its best, allows us to bring the real world to the learner through the use of sound and video. Such connection to the real world should serve as a factor in motivating students, and as a factor in providing them with additional connections to other knowledge structures. At the same time, multimedia allows students to experience information through multiple modes of presentation. Such multi-modal learning should help to build connections within the learner’s brain if only because multiple modes of reception will engage different areas of the learner’s brain. Contemporary multimedia platforms allow a greater degree of learner control and more freedom for the learner to undertake self-directed exploration of the material. Such self-directed learning is likely to be more meaningful and more connected to existing knowledge structures within the learner’s brain. Therefore, we should see advantages for learning programs that include multimedia presentations." (p. 15)

But add:

"Above all else, we should beware of the tendency to substitute passive learning for active learning. Multimedia provides significant advantages in presenting information to learners, particularly if sufficient resources have been invested to create presentations that make full use of current technology. Presentation of information, no matter how technically sophisticated, is not enough; learners must interact with content to construct their own meanings and integrate new knowledge into the dense web of neural connections that is mind and memory."

SO DON'T USE MULTIMEDIA TO PROMOTE PASSIVE LEARNING! THEY DON'T JUST WATCH A VIDEO! THEY HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!! 

Here's an app I found (students can download the free demo at bottom) which lets them "trace" any image they can put on the screen.
http://www.iconico.com/tracingpaper/help.aspx

Possible source for assignment 2?

Hsu, J. (2004). Reading without teachers: Literature circles in an EFL classroom. [Paper presented at the Cross-Strait Conference on English Education.] Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED492558.pdf

This presentation explores the idea of "literature circles" to help students (especially English learners) understand a book or story. A "circle" will be a group of four students, each of whom take on a role where they read the text with a focus on that aspect of reading. For example, Hsu suggests these "required" roles: discussion director, literary luminary, connector, and illustrator. This exercise, which can be adapted easily to an online classroom, helps students who are not adept readers make use of the power of the collective to understand a text. But having an essential role in the group reading will allow the student to learn a new way of analyzing through a narrow focus. Hsu, an English professor in Taiwan, is discussing ESL students, but the approach could also prove useful for native speakers who are not fluent readers.

Article about reading aloud-- abstract

Yaylı, D. (2010). A think-aloud study: Cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies of ELT department students. Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 38, 234-251.

In this peer-reviewed article, Yayli, a professor of English at a Turkish university, is studying whether cognitive and metacognitive strategies are enhanced by the act of reading aloud. The study examined the reading comprehension of PRs (proficient readers) and LPRs (less proficient readers), and found that PRs were more likely to use strategies such as reading aloud (thus perhaps accounting for their proficiency). When LPRs were encouraged to read aloud, their comprehension improved, and they were more likely to make "cohesive ties" like contextualizing the meaning of unfamiliar words.  Yayli found that students were more likely to use such strategies when reading narrative text than expository text, which will help support my proposal to have online literature students read the selection aloud using Vocaroo or other audio recording software. While Yayli's findings are based on studying foreign-speaker students, I will try this technique to see if it helps the less proficient native readers also. Yayli includes in his reference list several seminal meta-cognition sources that I will locate and review to see if they are useful for my assignment.

A book source for cognitive project

Instructional and Cognitive Impacts of Web-based EducationFull Text AvailableBy: Abbey, Beverly. Hershey, Pa : Idea Group Pub. 2000. eBook.

Subjects: 

COMPUTERS / Educational Software; Internet in education--Psychological aspects; World Wide Web; Instructional systems--Design

Database: 

eBook Collection (EBSCOhost)

Flow-- does this relate to cognitivism?

Or is it some more or less physiological/behaviorist response?

Mihaly Czikszentmihalyi: optimum flow occurs when: alienation gives way to involvement, enjoyment replaces boredom, helplessness turns into a feeling of control, and psychic energy works to reinforce the sense of self, instead of being lost in the service of external goals. (Czikszentmihalyi, 1990, p.69) 

Czikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper and Row.

 

 It's so complicated now that we know that we have endocrine and hormonal responses to outside events, and those chemicals might make it more or less likely that we'll learn. For example, what do we learn best under stress? Survival stuff?

My son just went through a lot of Army training (he's just been commissioned), and the theory seemed to be that they had to train these young people to accept and use stress. Agreed, many American youngsters are not really trained in that as there's so much intervention involved in keeping them from being stressed (at least in my household--  I am something of a helicopter-style parent, I will admit). But the Army, which does train great numbers of young people, obviously thinks that stress is a good promoter of certain learnings. 

I bet you can learn "instinct stuff" (like shooting back, or turning into a skid when you drive on ice) better under stress. But I can't imagine learning anything I have to THINK about under stress.

Are there hormonal/chemical changes that make it easier or harder to learn? I suppose that's the chemistry behind Ritalin and Adderall and those ADD drugs.

I just know I've never been any good at learning on deadline. I'm pretty good though at producing on deadline-- writing a paper that's due tomorrow, I mean. I don't do that anymore because I don't like the anxiety, but I can write fast when I need to.

But I don't know if that is "learning." I can't retain any information when I read fast, for example.

Alicia

Theories still useful but maybe proved false?

I don't know if these would constitute "proved false," as a good Marxist would say, "Marx's actual plan has never been put into effect-- USSR and China did it wrong."
And a psychoanalyst would probably say, "Freudian theory works great! You should try it!"

But I think probably Marxist theory and Freudian theory aren't really considered all that viable now. But they're still really useful in analysis, I think. For example, this week I happen to be scoring Advanced Placement exams, the literature ones-- just another of my odd little jobs. And the passage the students were analyzing (it's from a DH Lawrence novel) just cries out for a Marxist critique AND/OR a Freudian critique. That is, even if Marx's proletarian paradise isn't on its way anytime soon, his critique of the dangers of privileging capital over labor is, if anything, MORE apropos these days (what with investment bankers getting a billion dollars bonus and producing nothing tangible). And it very much works to help explain the disruption facing Lawrence's characters at the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

And as for Freud, well, the theory of the unconscious certainly does help explain why, as one student pointed out, the dessicated intellectual author-standin character spends such energy asserting "mastery" over the sturdy, studly, sweaty working class characters. "Methinks," the student opined, "when he scorns that blacksmith, he doth protest too much!"

Pure Freud. (Well, Shakespeare first, but that's one place Freud got the evidence for his theory.)

We know that dark forces within us can make us behave irrationally. Freud's reasons about why (primal horde, Oedipus complex, all that) might be a bit outre, but does anyone deny the power of the unconscious?

So maybe a theory in itself, even if flawed, can be a cognitive tool.

Behaviorism vs. Cognitive

More theorizing about theory! Observations from reading Harasim--
Learning theories of any kind seem to be mostly about -change. That is, the theory is an explanation of why beings (animals and plants too sometimes) change their behavior when they learn something.

Behaviorism is concerned with change in behavior.  You can observe that. Tell a student, "You'll get a good grade if you study this material and take the quiz," and you can see that the student puts down the phone and takes the quiz. Behavior changed, and we can make assumptions about why.

But cognitivism is concerned with changes in cognition-- how we think. So we observe how students improve, say, in their ability to remember a poem after they hear it set to music. (I can still SING but not recite Frost's "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" 45 years after Sister Evarista taught us to sing it to a tune she'd written.) And we can make assumptions about why music helps people memorize.

The change either way is due to some intervention from the outside, whether it's a stimulus or just access (like a library) or an assignment.

Can it be an "intervention" from the inside, like something inside me makes me want to change? Like I break my ankle and I want to learn about bones?

all those links

Divine: Best Practices for Online Distance Education to... (979.45 KB)
SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE DISTANCE LEARNING BE... (32.57 KB)

  a voicethread app. used to enable Social Presence in an online distance learning course.
 <object width="480" height="360"><param name="movie" value="https://ed.voicethread.com/book.swf?b=4765848"></param><param name="wmode" 
https://ed.voicethread.com/share/4765848/ 

In this episode, Dan and Susan ask whether it is okay in online classrooms to allow learners to...

If you've never seen a VoiceThread, it's a... Media presentation that invites collaboration from anyone, at anytime, anywhere in the world. A VoiceThread allows you and the people you invite to discuss media using voice and drawing annotations while navigating through a collection of media. There's no scheduling required because the conversation isn't live, it just feels that way. To get started, we recommend you take a look at commenting in a VoiceThread or learn more about VoiceThread.

  Dr. Jane Hart’s website @ this URL:  http://c4lpt.co.uk/

Tutorials

1. What is a Voice thread

https://ed.voicethread.com/?#q.b409.i848804

1. JUST PLAIN SIMPLE BUT YET ELEGANT

https://ed.voicethread.com/?#q.b577940.i3089588

1. MAKING PHONE IN COMMENTS

https://ed.voicethread.com/?#q.b29096.i160360

SOCIAL PRESENCE SAMPLES

FIRST SOCIAL PRESENCE EXAMPLE – HISTORY CLASS

https://ed.voicethread.com/about/library/Using_VoiceThread_in_an_online_course_from_Professor_Russ_Meade/

SECOND SOCIAL PRESENCE EXAMPLE – ONLINE MBA CLASS

https://ed.voicethread.com/about/library/Higher_Ed_from_Della_Curtis/

What is a Voice thread tutorial page links.docx (15.9 KB)

 P/S  here is a sample of Fliipping the classroom for effective instruction differentiation

https://ed.voicethread.com/share/4529983/ 

Best Practices for Online Distance Education to... (979.45 KB)

Best practices for students and teachers  

2 D F POST ARE MOOCS HERE TO STAY.docx (179.7 KB)

please open attachment if file failed to embed.

If you play this video (click the link)

https://ed.voicethread.com/share/4742413/

you will hear Dr. George Siemens  echo the points you have presented here:  your case for Connectivism as a theory. In the video, Dr. ANDRIA of UNISA asks the questions. Hope you enjoy it

Please, read this resource ... the position is different and that is what infuenced my thinking.

here it is:

Connectivism, Online Learning, and the MOOC from Stephen Downes

How has "connectivism" informed the development of MOOCs?

It is generally accepted that there are two types of MOOCs based on distinct pedagogical approaches. The “cMOOCs focus on knowledge creation and generation whereas xMOOCs focus on knowledge duplication” (Siemens, 2012). For an overview of how MOOCs developed, see an excellent article by Daniels (2012).cMOOCs are based on connectivist principles of learning embracing learners as co-producers of knowledge and meaning with learning taking place in decentralized locations but the artefacts of learning are harvested to a central point through daily and/or weekly newsletters, lists of blogs and sites, etc. xMOOCs  are more traditional online learning with centralized content (whether in the form of recorded lectures, etc), and centralized discussion and sensemaking. xMOOCs are furthermore mostly based on behaviourist notions of learning (Daniels, 2012; Siemens, 2012).

The technologies used in  MOOCs appear below and are  based on four types of activity:

• Aggregation – a wide variety of resources were proposed by students and course presenters to watch, read, engage in as well as a daily/weekly aggregation of all posted artefacts of sensemaking posted outside on different platforms
• Remixing – through participants creating artefacts of sensemaking through blogging, (using Blogger or Wordpress), social bookmarking (e.g., using Diigo) or online discussions (using Google Groups)
• Repurposing – “the facilitators suggested and described tools that participants could use to create their own content, and it was envisaged that participants would become accomplished creators and critics of ideas and knowledge” (Kop et al., 2011, p. 79)
• Feed forward – participants were encouraged and in some ways supported to share their artefacts of sensemaking and other found resources with the participant group through sharing links to their respective sites, or through Twitter (#change11)

Other tools used were:

• Elluminate – for online synchronous collaboration in live weekly sessions
• gRSShopper, and RSS aggregator that was used to “allow a networked conversation to emerge from personal learning spaces of individual learners through a connect-and-collaborate dynamic that facilitators found to be well suited to the just-in-time collection of information prevalent in MOOCs” (Kop et al, 2012, p. 79)

 Conclusion I think the two different types of MOOCs serve different purposes and different audiences. I really do think CMOOCs require a lot of independence but also allows for amazing creativity and encourages one to become a knowledge producer and not only a consumer. The xMOOCs serve a very specific skills and content oriented need and once the assessment and accreditation issues can be sorted out, I am convinced that it may impact on higher education, especially on undergraduate level. 

 I love MOOCs. I use MOOCs and Online Courseware for this class as supplemental resources for my learning.

 Cheers divine eseh

References

Daniels, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs. Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education. Retrieved from http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/jime/article/view/2012-18.

Kob, R., Fournier, H., & Mak, J.S.F. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses.The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 12(7), 74-93. Retrieved fromhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1041/2042.

Kirschner, A. (2012). A pioneer in online education tries a MOOC. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/A-Pioneer-in-Online-Education/134662/

Siemens, G. (2012). MOOCs are really a platform. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/07/25/moocs-are-really-a-platform/.

On September 10, 2012, I enrolled in “Openness in Education”, a 12 week MOOC course, facilitated by Drs. McGrreal and George Siemens. For details about the course, here is the wiki-URL:  http://open.mooc.ca/   This course uses a connectivist based pedagogy and it is distributed across the web. Learning in the course results from the activities the student undertakes, and this will be different for each student. Like all connectivist courses it is based on four main activity-types as shown from the URL below:

 http://open.mooc.ca/how.htm

eadings and URL:

• Breaking Higher Education's Iron Triangle: Access, Cost, and Quality
• http://www.col.org/resources/speeches/2009presentation/Pages/2009-MarAprEdition.aspx

Video: My Learning Artifact Project URL:

• https://voicethread.com/share/4283127/

That artifact concluded my first experience with MOOCs.Today and to supplement my class readings I have enrolled in “Connectivism, Online Learning, and the MOOC” please follow the URL for  details  http://www.downes.ca/presentation/320

.Connectivism, Online Learning, and the MOOC from Stephen Downes

Photo Source: http://www.downes.ca/presentation/320

 

---

Lakisha:

Boettcher, J. V. (2012). Ten best practices for teaching   online: Quick guide for 

     new online faculty. Retrieved from

     http://designingforlearning.info/services/writing/ecoach/tenbest.html

 Jeep;

IStella Porto  a terrific graphic on the use of Creative Commons in the MDE lounge. .

 Stewart Hase, who writes frequently about heutagogy with his collaborator, Chris Kenyon.

In his recent blog post, “The Education Foxtrot”, he notes that the system is usually at odds with the learner

Dr. Jane Bozarth and her community of practice – the TRAIN group.  

How do MOOCs enable a personal learning space? Do we need a PLS? How can connectivism enable a PLS? Or not? 

http://theta.edu.au/program/presentations-2/convene-a-lightning-round/a-personal-learning-space/

Connectivism and MOOCs seem to be evolutionary in that they afford "just-in-time" learning" opportunities. Conversely, the now "traditional" Distance Education institutions offering a structured and committed degree path SHOULD embrace at least the spirit of the PLS in providing further scaffolding/structure by creating ePortfolio "templates" which, as Sutherland notes, "prompt the user to consider diverse aspects of their experiences and facilitate the process of making sense of, and learning from, these experiences to a much deeper level."

Isn't this as Brindley, Naidu, et al. have posited? Yet I imagine the diversity among OMDE learners and their respective ePortfolios must be staggering!

Pebble Pad is an environment (system) not an object as I initially surmised. In investigating further, I found a concise PDF document worth sharing:

http://www.pebblepad.co.uk/cs_download/business/05-principles-of-a-personal-learning.pdf

Most notably (for me) was this:

"The wizards and forms in PebblePad support users through the process of creating meaningful records of experience and linking these records to develop rich understandings of learning. This scaffolding not only benefits users but also makes the process of learning evident for anyone with whom these records are shared. Supervisors, tutors and/or peers can assess not only the product of the learning activity but more importantly the process of skill and knowledge acquisition. Together with the capacity for ongoing formative feedback, PebblePad becomes a powerful 

Patricia:

etrieved from

http://theta.edu.au/program/presentations-2/convene-a-lightning-round/a-personal-learning-space/

Retrieved from http://www.cairn.info/article.php?ID_ARTICLE=DIS_053_0427 

Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

Aaron;

 Google Scholar! What are the odds?

http://cemca.org.in/ckfinder/userfiles/files/EdTech%20Notes%202_Littlejohn_final_1June2013.pdf

I'm attaching it here in case anyone wants to take a glance at it. 

Understanding MOOCs

 Michelle:

Siemens, George. (2012). What is the Theory that Underpins our MOOCs?

Retrieved from:

http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/06/03/what-is-the-theory-that-underpins-our-moocs/

Gulnur;

Below is a link to a resource that I found interesting: 

http://onlinelearninginsights.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/the-future-of-moocs-according-to-sir-john-daniel-tony-bates-anant-agarwal-sanjay-sarma/

 Consistency discussion:

Consistency vs. Customization from Alicia Alicia Rasley - Jul 22, 2013 6:29 PM  Mark Unread [Reply] More actions... 0 unread of 14 messages - 8 author(s) I wrote a whole big long discussion about this and the browser crashed. Grrrrr... One issue that might come up in the near future (certainly is in my department) is Consistency vs. Customization. The stakeholders would be the administration or MOOC developers on the consistency side, and the faculty on the customization side. They both have the students in mind, but I'm thinking they might not be the same students. Siemens (2012) in listing aspects of a MOOC mentions "a uniformity of understanding" or synchronization. While he's talking mostly, I think, about content, this applies also to a consistency of design in the materials used in the course. The consistency of design, in both "architecture" (you always find the readings in the same place, say) and in appearance (same logo, same font choice, same colors) can help new students or casual learners feel comfortable right away and be more willingly to plunge in because they feel familiar with the situation. However, professors in more traditional (smaller) online courses often also stress the importance of "customization", resting on the constructivism of Gagne and the honoring of the professor-student joint "construction" of learning. Also, the customization of instructional material allows a more close fit with course objectives, fitting in with the cognitive theory that shows the importance of defining the skills to be achieved. The sort of student taking classes for credit, majoring in a particular discipline, might beneift more from customization than consistency. Both can be achieved to a limited level. Consistency of format can be carried through in all material-- but for customized material, content can still more closely match the course. So content-intrusive design decisions (like, as I was once told, "A handout should never be more than three short paragraphs-- try explaining essay structure usefully in three short paragraphs!) might be more applicable to MOOC-style information-intensive classes than to for-credit courses meant to teach not only information but skills. Consistency of appearance is always appreciated, I think. And placement-- nothing like having four courses in Tycho, and in one, the assignment instructions are in "conference 4", and in another they are in "Course Materials", and in the third they're in "Project Descriptions," and in the fourth they're in "Required Reading." Frustrating! Maybe the point is to "make them work for it," but isn't that what the assignment will do? I do think it's important for education design research to be done on educational material. Much of the research on reading and focusing seems to have been done on more ephemeral material, like marketing and advertising, and I don't think students paying tuition to take a class for credit and eventual use in the future are necessarily going to give the same limited attention they do when they're skimming an ad. Siemens, G. (2012).. What is the theory that underpins our MOOCs? elearnspace.Retrieved July 8, 2013, from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/06/03/what-is-the-theory-that-underpins-our-moocs/ Collapse Replies

---

student-widgets?

student-widgets? Cynthia Whitesel - Jul 24, 2013 6:07 PM  Mark Unread [Reply] More actions... 0 unread of 11 messages - 10 author(s) Alicia, You raise many good points here! I, for one, have pondered this consistency vs. customization issue for years. So. . . . do you think we should go for consistency? IMHO, I think about how different teaching styles (and teacher organizational styles) often lead to new learning and new thinking. I think about how the teacher then gets to contribute to construction of new knowledge. We are facing standardization at UMUC as we move our classes over to D2L or LEO. Standardization is a drivign force in industrialization. Do we produce more student-widgets? Customization enables teachers to become forces of learning as they "break" the rules. Do we find ways to do this online? Why must "practice" and policy push for standardization? How can the teacher's individuality be respected? Where does the teacher's individuality fit in this drive for student-centeredness? Is this healthy for education? Inquiring minds want to know. . . . Cindy Collapse Replies

---

Re: student-widgets?

Re: student-widgets? Alicia Rasley - Jul 24, 2013 6:45 PM  Mark Unread [Reply] More actions... 0 unread of 1 messages - 1 author(s) I guess I think both are important, but for different purposes -- consistency is going to be important for creating familiarity and ease of use, and that's especially useful in MOOCs as the consistency will help make the information more understandable. And there are many ways to make design consistent without making the instruction the same-- types of headings, placement of graphics, length of paragraphs. But I think maybe this is getting to the ultimate distinction between "mass" and "individual" in education. The student who is paying tuition should get more individual treatment than the one (like me) who signs up for a free course and has no investment and no real need to pay close attention. Customization of content to me is the first way instructors make a difference. (The other would be interaction and feedback.) What's really individual is that different instructors will have different styles and emphases-- and I think that's good. We don't want the desire for consistency to mean that instructors are all alike. (this is the issue I've been facing in my own work... how much of my own teaching style and priorities should/can be evident in my classes?) How about this: Design consistency can enhance instructor customization by making it easier to organize individual material to make it accessible to the target audience, whatever that is. I always like having some format provided so I don't have to worry about (the latest issue) what color of red this font is. I don't actually care (maybe I should, but I'm really willing to defer to those who can tell the difference between "garnet" and "oxblood"), and would rather have a designer make the basic decisions. And then when it comes to design decisions that affect content (like paragraph length), we can have a conversation so we understand each other's particular reasoning and come up with a way to have both the meaning I want and the presentation the designer wants. I keep reading Siemens' article over because I see this issue broached but not really addressed there... How can "consistency" help "customization?" And vice versa? But most important, what are the objectives of class situations and how will this inform that discussion? Audience matters too. A newer audience (first-year college students, or many MOOC students) might need more consistency in presentation as the consistency itself will provide a jolt of meaning-- "This is important... this is cause and over here this is effect... this is best explained graphically...." And we can look at lab reports to see how even at the highest level (peer reviewed articles in academic journals), consistency of format (and wording) is prized so that it can be easily grasped and the reader can find quickly what's most important to him/her-- like "is the methodology useful to my work?" or "Let's cut to the chase-- I want the results!" or "This seems sort of off somehow-- better check the sample size." But if we're presening (even different) material in the same way to casual learners and to graduate students, I think we might well be missing a chance to understand our audience and purpose and our own objectives for the course. I'm a good customizer but not really good at consistency, and I think often those two skills don't necessarily show up together in one person, so this might be an opportunity for teamwork.  I see this coming up a lot in writing. I once wrote a characteristically discursive book about the fictional element of point of view, and then when it got bought by a publisher, I had to learn from the editor the value of consistency of format (so that each chapter had the same type of bullet list introduction, and the same sort of list of recommended books at the end). But I think this worked mostly because it kept most of my content (though the editor decided my fabbo "history of point of view in the novel" essay didn't really fit <G>). Novelists struggle with this a lot, as often consistency seems to the enemy of creativity. It isn't, but different novel processes might start differently... I might think, "I'm going to write this book using the Hero's Journey schema," or I might write the novel the way it comes out and only try to organize it consistently after I have the draft done. This is the great American issue, really, individualism vs. community. There might not be a final answer, but surely the dialectic will produce great new forms? Alicia <<< Replied to message below >>> Authored on: Jul 24, 2013 6:07 PM Subject: student-widgets?  Alicia, You raise many good points here! I, for one, have pondered this consistency vs. customization issue for years. So. . . . do you think we should go for consistency? IMHO, I think about how different teaching styles (and teacher organizational styles) often lead to new learning and new thinking. I think about how the teacher then gets to contribute to construction of new knowledge. We are facing standardization at UMUC as we move our classes over to D2L or LEO. Standardization is a drivign force in industrialization. Do we produce more student-widgets? Customization enables teachers to become forces of learning as they "break" the rules. Do we find ways to do this online? Why must "practice" and policy push for standardization? How can the teacher's individuality be respected? Where does the teacher's individuality fit in this drive for student-centeredness? Is this healthy for education? Inquiring minds want to know. . . . Cindy

---

Re: student-widgets?

Re: student-widgets? George-Paul Fortuna - Jul 24, 2013 9:23 PM  Mark Unread [Reply] More actions... 0 unread of 9 messages - 6 author(s) Whoa!  Back The truck up! In all the readings from our esteemed colleagues, including Harasim and Ally, I cannot find any contradiction to the premise that the learner is primary in consideration. “Consistency vs. customization” seem to be code words for “the system” vs. the “participant”. While I respect the “system” maintaining  academic integrity, the ultimate test should be is the learner changed in their thinking – this is the ultimate universal notion of higher learning  if not training. As practitioners, we may present material. The learner will accept or reject the material with explanation – this is the essence of didactic discourse. Case in point, a student who “flunks” high school mathematics writes on the blackboard, “E=MC2”. While he might not have grasped the lesson (consistency), by customization, did he achieve the lesson? YES! In this instance he saw beyond the consistency and begged the customization of his science and fellow colleagues. Science and the world changed. The mitigation is the practitioner who can see beyond consistency and appreciate the possibilities as all good practitioners do. Authored on: Jul 24, 2013 6:07 PM Subject: student-widgets?  Alicia, You raise many good points here! I, for one, have pondered this consistency vs. customization issue for years. So. . . . do you think we should go for consistency? IMHO, I think about how different teaching styles (and teacher organizational styles) often lead to new learning and new thinking. I think about how the teacher then gets to contribute to construction of new knowledge. We are facing standardization at UMUC as we move our classes over to D2L or LEO. Standardization is a drivign force in industrialization. Do we produce more student-widgets? Customization enables teachers to become forces of learning as they "break" the rules. Do we find ways to do this online? Why must "practice" and policy push for standardization? How can the teacher's individuality be respected? Where does the teacher's individuality fit in this drive for student-centeredness? Is this healthy for education? Inquiring minds want to know. . . . Cindy Collapse Replies

---

Re: student-widgets?

Re: student-widgets? Alicia Rasley - Jul 24, 2013 9:54 PM  Mark Unread [Reply] More actions... 0 unread of 3 messages - 2 author(s) Of course, the student who flunks math flunks math.  A great teacher might be able to see some promise in this student, but "you need to score 69% on the final exam" is likely going be more determinative. My dad was majoring in Civil Engineering at Purdue after WWII, and he failed first semester calculus. He went to the professor and said feebly, "I actually wanted to major in math." The professor laughed and said math majors often failed calculus because they tried to figure it out without learning the formulas. And he said take it again and memorize what you need to know! And Dad got an A the second time, and ended up a math professor. But he always said if that prof hadn't been able to look past the "rule" (if you fail something, you're bad at it), he would have probably dropped out thinking he was stupid. I've always thought that was a great example of a teacher who understood not just what but WHOM he was teaching. And understood how they think. That's like what you mentioned: the practitioner who can see beyond consistency and appreciate the possibilities as all good practitioners do. <<< Replied to message below >>> Authored on: Jul 24, 2013 9:23 PM Subject: Re: student-widgets?  Whoa!  Back The truck up! In all the readings from our esteemed colleagues, including Harasim and Ally, I cannot find any contradiction to the premise that the learner is primary in consideration. “Consistency vs. customization” seem to be code words for “the system” vs. the “participant”. While I respect the “system” maintaining  academic integrity, the ultimate test should be is the learner changed in their thinking – this is the ultimate universal notion of higher learning  if not training. As practitioners, we may present material. The learner will accept or reject the material with explanation – this is the essence of didactic discourse. Case in point, a student who “flunks” high school mathematics writes on the blackboard, “E=MC2”. While he might not have grasped the lesson (consistency), by customization, did he achieve the lesson? YES! In this instance he saw beyond the consistency and begged the customization of his science and fellow colleagues. Science and the world changed. The mitigation is the practitioner who can see beyond consistency and appreciate the possibilities as all good practitioners do. Authored on: Jul 24, 2013 6:07 PM Subject: student-widgets?  Alicia, You raise many good points here! I, for one, have pondered this consistency vs. customization issue for years. So. . . . do you think we should go for consistency? IMHO, I think about how different teaching styles (and teacher organizational styles) often lead to new learning and new thinking. I think about how the teacher then gets to contribute to construction of new knowledge. We are facing standardization at UMUC as we move our classes over to D2L or LEO. Standardization is a drivign force in industrialization. Do we produce more student-widgets? Customization enables teachers to become forces of learning as they "break" the rules. Do we find ways to do this online? Why must "practice" and policy push for standardization? How can the teacher's individuality be respected? Where does the teacher's individuality fit in this drive for student-centeredness? Is this healthy for education? Inquiring minds want to know. . . . Cindy Collapse Replies

---

Re: student-widgets?

Re: student-widgets? George-Paul Fortuna - Jul 24, 2013 10:43 PM  Mark Unread [Reply] More actions... 0 unread of 2 messages - 2 author(s) Alicia, As usual, you have demonstated a knack for humanizing complex theory through story. Your Dad surley was an amazing fellow . <<< Replied to message below >>> Authored on: Jul 24, 2013 9:54 PM Subject: Re: student-widgets?  Of course, the student who flunks math flunks math.  A great teacher might be able to see some promise in this student, but "you need to score 69% on the final exam" is likely going be more determinative. My dad was majoring in Civil Engineering at Purdue after WWII, and he failed first semester calculus. He went to the professor and said feebly, "I actually wanted to major in math." The professor laughed and said math majors often failed calculus because they tried to figure it out without learning the formulas. And he said take it again and memorize what you need to know! And Dad got an A the second time, and ended up a math professor. But he always said if that prof hadn't been able to look past the "rule" (if you fail something, you're bad at it), he would have probably dropped out thinking he was stupid. I've always thought that was a great example of a teacher who understood not just what but WHOM he was teaching. And understood how they think. That's like what you mentioned: the practitioner who can see beyond consistency and appreciate the possibilities as all good practitioners do. <<< Replied to message below >>> Authored on: Jul 24, 2013 9:23 PM Subject: Re: student-widgets?  Whoa!  Back The truck up! In all the readings from our esteemed colleagues, including Harasim and Ally, I cannot find any contradiction to the premise that the learner is primary in consideration. “Consistency vs. customization” seem to be code words for “the system” vs. the “participant”. While I respect the “system” maintaining  academic integrity, the ultimate test should be is the learner changed in their thinking – this is the ultimate universal notion of higher learning  if not training. As practitioners, we may present material. The learner will accept or reject the material with explanation – this is the essence of didactic discourse. Case in point, a student who “flunks” high school mathematics writes on the blackboard, “E=MC2”. While he might not have grasped the lesson (consistency), by customization, did he achieve the lesson? YES! In this instance he saw beyond the consistency and begged the customization of his science and fellow colleagues. Science and the world changed. The mitigation is the practitioner who can see beyond consistency and appreciate the possibilities as all good practitioners do. Authored on: Jul 24, 2013 6:07 PM Subject: student-widgets?  Alicia, You raise many good points here! I, for one, have pondered this consistency vs. customization issue for years. So. . . . do you think we should go for consistency? IMHO, I think about how different teaching styles (and teacher organizational styles) often lead to new learning and new thinking. I think about how the teacher then gets to contribute to construction of new knowledge. We are facing standardization at UMUC as we move our classes over to D2L or LEO. Standardization is a drivign force in industrialization. Do we produce more student-widgets? Customization enables teachers to become forces of learning as they "break" the rules. Do we find ways to do this online? Why must "practice" and policy push for standardization? How can the teacher's individuality be respected? Where does the teacher's individuality fit in this drive for student-centeredness? Is this healthy for education? Inquiring minds want to know. . . . Cindy Collapse Replies

---

Re: student-widgets?

Re: student-widgets? Alicia Rasley - Jul 25, 2013 10:00 AM  Mark Unread [Reply] More actions... 0 unread of 1 messages - 1 author(s) Well, he was, but he didn't pass on his math ability. Alas! Alicia <<< Replied to message below >>> Authored on: Jul 24, 2013 10:43 PM Subject: Re: student-widgets?  Alicia, As usual, you have demonstated a knack for humanizing complex theory through story. Your Dad surley was an amazing fellow . <<< Replied to message below >>> Authored on: Jul 24, 2013 9:54 PM Subject: Re: student-widgets?  Of course, the student who flunks math flunks math.  A great teacher might be able to see some promise in this student, but "you need to score 69% on the final exam" is likely going be more determinative. My dad was majoring in Civil Engineering at Purdue after WWII, and he failed first semester calculus. He went to the professor and said feebly, "I actually wanted to major in math." The professor laughed and said math majors often failed calculus because they tried to figure it out without learning the formulas. And he said take it again and memorize what you need to know! And Dad got an A the second time, and ended up a math professor. But he always said if that prof hadn't been able to look past the "rule" (if you fail something, you're bad at it), he would have probably dropped out thinking he was stupid. I've always thought that was a great example of a teacher who understood not just what but WHOM he was teaching. And understood how they think. That's like what you mentioned: the practitioner who can see beyond consistency and appreciate the possibilities as all good practitioners do. <<< Replied to message below >>> Authored on: Jul 24, 2013 9:23 PM Subject: Re: student-widgets?  Whoa!  Back The truck up! In all the readings from our esteemed colleagues, including Harasim and Ally, I cannot find any contradiction to the premise that the learner is primary in consideration. “Consistency vs. customization” seem to be code words for “the system” vs. the “participant”. While I respect the “system” maintaining  academic integrity, the ultimate test should be is the learner changed in their thinking – this is the ultimate universal notion of higher learning  if not training. As practitioners, we may present material. The learner will accept or reject the material with explanation – this is the essence of didactic discourse. Case in point, a student who “flunks” high school mathematics writes on the blackboard, “E=MC2”. While he might not have grasped the lesson (consistency), by customization, did he achieve the lesson? YES! In this instance he saw beyond the consistency and begged the customization of his science and fellow colleagues. Science and the world changed. The mitigation is the practitioner who can see beyond consistency and appreciate the possibilities as all good practitioners do. Authored on: Jul 24, 2013 6:07 PM Subject: student-widgets?  Alicia, You raise many good points here! I, for one, have pondered this consistency vs. customization issue for years. So. . . . do you think we should go for consistency? IMHO, I think about how different teaching styles (and teacher organizational styles) often lead to new learning and new thinking. I think about how the teacher then gets to contribute to construction of new knowledge. We are facing standardization at UMUC as we move our classes over to D2L or LEO. Standardization is a drivign force in industrialization. Do we produce more student-widgets? Customization enables teachers to become forces of learning as they "break" the rules. Do we find ways to do this online? Why must "practice" and policy push for standardization? How can the teacher's individuality be respected? Where does the teacher's individuality fit in this drive for student-centeredness? Is this healthy for education? Inquiring minds want to know. . . . Cindy

---

synergism

synergism Cynthia Whitesel - Jul 28, 2013 7:24 AM  Mark Unread [Reply] More actions... 0 unread of 5 messages - 5 author(s) Jeep, I think the consistency vs customization debate is "code" for the debate about intellectual freedom for teachers, not necessarily about the system vs the participants. And it is an interesting situation theoretically. Of course, teachers want each student to take away from a class experience the best learning possible for that student. And students' needs will be somewhat different. As Alicia suggests, however, grades are still part of the equation and grades have to considered. What would happen if we focused on students' needs in learning and made grades more backgrounded? What if we made a list of where we would like to see consistency applied and what we think ought to be customized about the learning experience? Once we see the actually application in course design and recommended teaching strategies, we may have some insights into the debate and perhaps better understanding of applying these ideas. How do we make these two ideas synergistic? Your thoughts? Cindy Collapse Replies

---

Re: synergism

Re: synergism Alicia Rasley - Jul 28, 2013 12:49 PM  Mark Unread [Reply] More actions... 0 unread of 2 messages - 2 author(s) I remember some colleges used to experiment with the elimination of grades, but I don't know what happened. Brown did for some courses at some point. But I think students complained because the best students wanted the stellar GPA for the CV, can't blame them I guess. I really like taking the occasional pass/fail course because it takes the pressure off. I don't feel the need to achieve and can just learn. But that works more in the "passive receptacle model", where there's just a certain amount of information to learn, where the assignments are not themselves actual learning tools but just for assessment. Isn't that odd-- for me, the assessment (grade) is important to encourage me to really work on the "learning process" (writing the paper). I wonder if with a student population programmed (in the behaviorist sense) to expect the reward of a grade, we can really  move to another type of motivation. Of course, in so many CoPs, there is no "grading", and still they want to be excellent. A friend of mine was saying she's in a big knitting community, and there's no grading or ranking, and yet she gets a strong sense that the most highly regarded members are those who help others the most, like sharing patterns, offering advice, being encouraging. That's kind of awesome. Alicia <<< Replied to message below >>> Authored on: Jul 28, 2013 7:24 AM Subject: synergism Jeep, I think the consistency vs customization debate is "code" for the debate about intellectual freedom for teachers, not necessarily about the system vs the participants. And it is an interesting situation theoretically. Of course, teachers want each student to take away from a class experience the best learning possible for that student. And students' needs will be somewhat different. As Alicia suggests, however, grades are still part of the equation and grades have to considered. What would happen if we focused on students' needs in learning and made grades more backgrounded? What if we made a list of where we would like to see consistency applied and what we think ought to be customized about the learning experience? Once we see the actually application in course design and recommended teaching strategies, we may have some insights into the debate and perhaps better understanding of applying these ideas. How do we make these two ideas synergistic? Your thoughts? Cindy Collapse Replies

---

Re: synergism

Re: synergism George-Paul Fortuna - Jul 29, 2013 12:06 PM  Mark Unread [Reply] More actions... 0 unread of 1 messages - 1 author(s) Alicia, Regarding CoPs, I believe "grading" is a collaborative activity that is self-regulating (peer pressure?) within the community. <<< Replied to message below >>> Authored on: Jul 28, 2013 12:49 PM Subject: Re: synergism I remember some colleges used to experiment with the elimination of grades, but I don't know what happened. Brown did for some courses at some point. But I think students complained because the best students wanted the stellar GPA for the CV, can't blame them I guess. I really like taking the occasional pass/fail course because it takes the pressure off. I don't feel the need to achieve and can just learn. But that works more in the "passive receptacle model", where there's just a certain amount of information to learn, where the assignments are not themselves actual learning tools but just for assessment. Isn't that odd-- for me, the assessment (grade) is important to encourage me to really work on the "learning process" (writing the paper). I wonder if with a student population programmed (in the behaviorist sense) to expect the reward of a grade, we can really  move to another type of motivation. Of course, in so many CoPs, there is no "grading", and still they want to be excellent. A friend of mine was saying she's in a big knitting community, and there's no grading or ranking, and yet she gets a strong sense that the most highly regarded members are those who help others the most, like sharing patterns, offering advice, being encouraging. That's kind of awesome. Alicia <<< Replied to message below >>> Authored on: Jul 28, 2013 7:24 AM Subject: synergism Jeep, I think the consistency vs customization debate is "code" for the debate about intellectual freedom for teachers, not necessarily about the system vs the participants. And it is an interesting situation theoretically. Of course, teachers want each student to take away from a class experience the best learning possible for that student. And students' needs will be somewhat different. As Alicia suggests, however, grades are still part of the equation and grades have to considered. What would happen if we focused on students' needs in learning and made grades more backgrounded? What if we made a list of where we would like to see consistency applied and what we think ought to be customized about the learning experience? Once we see the actually application in course design and recommended teaching strategies, we may have some insights into the debate and perhaps better understanding of applying these ideas. How do we make these two ideas synergistic? Your thoughts? Cindy

---

Re: synergism

Re: synergism Alicia Rasley - Jul 28, 2013 1:23 PM  Mark Unread [Reply] More actions... 0 unread of 1 messages - 1 author(s) Yes, intellectual freedom is an issue here. First, in my experience, many online courses (especially intro courses) are taught by adjuncts who don't have intellectual freedom-- the term-to-term "contract," the lack of access to materials and technology, the actual discouragement of learning more or getting another degree or going to conferences (all of which could make this teacher too expensive <G>). Often they are presented with a completely designed course and no alterations are allowed. This is a sad reality. A friend of mine said, "I think my department would like my only interaction with students to be grading their assignments... they want me to be a grading robot." That's the extreme (but quite common) of "consistency," and probably no professor with tenure and a bit of power would allow that. Power does come into the equation, I think... and in the ever-growing conflict between faculty and administration, "consistency" is a powerful weapon for the administration, as it's so much cheaper and more standardizable and more assessible. But avoiding that extreme of the "robot could teach this", I can see a list of where consistency would be really useful. Burgess, Barth, & Mercereau (2008) discuss the  usefulness of a "template" with consistent design elements: "Student satisfaction results from a logical, consistent course design that allows them to focus on course content and interact with their instructor." 1. Logo or banner that reassures the student that this is indeed the right class/school. That familiarity is important for making the student comfortable, and the "branding" I think can subtly increase the value of this course or material by linking it to the greater collection of good stuff that is the university or department. 2. Consistency of material placement, so that students know where to find the assignments and where to find the grades and where to find the lectures. Why have students without much time waste their classroom time searching for that elusive Lecture 4? 3. Consistency of interaction possibilities. A student who knows there's always a conference set up for questions will be more likely to ask a question. 4. Modes of delivery-- I don't like "multimedia for multimedia's sake," but if the instructor/designer knows there is the opportunity and expectation of something beyond text, he/she is more likely to start looking for ways to incorporate that or aspects of knowledge that would be better conveyed by some multimedia. 5. With text-- still and probably always a primary "delivery mode"-- a consistent standard font will train students to expect something different when a different font or color are used. The consistency can set up the mental equation that "different=important" which can help students focus on new material or better grasp complex material. I keep seeing in the design lit "consistency of length," but I find that actually can restrict not just the length but the depth.  This isn't a bumper sticker or tweet, it's the analysis of a complicated problem, or of a poem, and can serve as a model of how to analyze, read closely, think deeply, determine cause and effect, etc. This is not the place to require consistency, I think, though encouragement can be made to present material more cogently, maybe. But the point is to present complex material more clearly, not simplify the material so it can be presented consistently. So while I can see the advantage of breaking up complicated material into smaller parts, I think it really would interfere on a number of levels to have some requirement that, say, I have three paragraphs and 12 lines to teach thesis statements. I  have found it quite helpful though to require (of myself) a sort of consistent "mood" approach-- that is, affirmative and positive. That has really informed several aspects of creation of course material, from design (starting with easy first and progressing to more difficult, so that the student "succeeds" early on), to language, always positive (not "Avoid these bad things," but rather "try these good things"), and especially to the encouragement of experimentation-- helping the student feel free to try things and not feel like a failure if some attempts don't turn out to be effective. I'd like to work in collaboration to this, like suggesting that other students chip in with suggestions for revision of this or other ways of experimenting. I'm not sure this is "consistency," but I do want that consistent tone of encouragement and experimentation. That feels like a way of empowering the student to try things out. I guess I like "consistency" when it adds to the student's immediate sense of familiarity and ability-- "I can do this." Inconsistency in all aspects can lead to that "overwhelm," where the student starts out feeling powerless. Consistency in certain aspects in contrast can overcome the overwhelm, and help students start out feeling capable. But I think maybe the deeper they get into the course, the more we should let complexity and individuation be important, as they'll now be feeling more able to understand. Alicia Burgess, V.,  Barth, K., Mersereau, C. (2008). Quality Online Instruction – A Template for Consistent and Effective Online Course Design. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/effective_practices/quality-online-instruction-%E2%80%93-template-consistent-and-effective-online-course-des <<< Replied to message below >>> Authored on: Jul 28, 2013 7:24 AM Subject: synergism Jeep, I think the consistency vs customization debate is "code" for the debate about intellectual freedom for teachers, not necessarily about the system vs the participants. And it is an interesting situation theoretically. Of course, teachers want each student to take away from a class experience the best learning possible for that student. And students' needs will be somewhat different. As Alicia suggests, however, grades are still part of the equation and grades have to considered. What would happen if we focused on students' needs in learning and made grades more backgrounded? What if we made a list of where we would like to see consistency applied and what we think ought to be customized about the learning experience? Once we see the actually application in course design and recommended teaching strategies, we may have some insights into the debate and perhaps better understanding of applying these ideas. How do we make these two ideas synergistic? Your thoughts? Cindy

---

Re: synergism

Re: synergism George-Paul Fortuna - Jul 29, 2013 12:02 PM  Mark Unread [Reply] More actions... 0 unread of 1 messages - 1 author(s) Cindy, I think that “intellectual freedom” for teachers is constrained by their respective institutions (system). I like that our institution (UMUC) and program (OMDE) acknowledges the value of customiztion and accommodates it in its “threads” and choice of assignment medium (paper vs. video vs. PowerPoint presentation). The real question might indeed be how one arrives at the learner’s grade (backgrounding). I posed this question to both my 17 year old daughter and wife who works for a teacher’s union  - the AFT. The answer may have been revealed by my daughter who gave the example of her recent pre-calculus course.   In that course, as well as all her math courses thus far, the student is required to show their work. Even though a student may get the “answer” wrong, a learner, by showing their work, demonstrates that they understand the core concepts of calculus but made a “wrong” turn. In such a case, the practitioner usually awards points for this understanding and while minimizing  the penalty for getting the answer wrong. Perhaps this is why our own grading attempts to balance “core competencies” with “discovery” activities such as our discussion threads and ePortfolios, as these represent 40% of our grade.  With these activities, we, as learners, are afforded permission to get it wrong in our journey to understanding. I believe this is very forward thinking. As we move forward with DE, our own institution’s practices may well be that “grass roots” moment to which Ott and Benke allude. And yes, I may be biased – Fear the Turtle! <<< Replied to message below >>> Authored on: Jul 28, 2013 7:24 AM Subject: synergism Jeep, I think the consistency vs customization debate is "code" for the debate about intellectual freedom for teachers, not necessarily about the system vs the participants. And it is an interesting situation theoretically. Of course, teachers want each student to take away from a class experience the best learning possible for that student. And students' needs will be somewhat different. As Alicia suggests, however, grades are still part of the equation and grades have to considered. What would happen if we focused on students' needs in learning and made grades more backgrounded? What if we made a list of where we would like to see consistency applied and what we think ought to be customized about the learning experience? Once we see the actually application in course design and recommended teaching strategies, we may have some insights into the debate and perhaps better understanding of applying these ideas. How do we make these two ideas synergistic? Your thoughts? Cindy

 

Re: The debate goes on. . . MOOCS as a step on the way by Alicia Alicia Rasley - Jul 28, 2013 3:44 PM  Mark Unread [Reply] More actions...

0 unread of 1 messages - 1 author(s)

Hmm. First I guess I'd point out that like so many of these attempts by schools to make a profit, MOOCs are doomed to fail as a money-making adventure. There are ways probably to make money in ancillary ways (like selling books associated with the course, or selling podcasts of the lectures), but there's virtually no profit here. Universities would do better to use funds to buy a few shares of stock in the new companies formed by their IT graduates. :)
However, MOOCs without the title are all over the internet. Ask.com for example has for more than a decade featured experts writing instructional materials that are basically classes. (I've gone through one in basic HTML, for example.) This is just something the company offers-- content to draw in potential customers who might see the associated ads. That is, the MOOC is considered "content" rather like an article in an online magazine.
I don't imagine most universities will feel comfortable putting ads into courses (though wait a few years and we'll see-- the physical bookstores at universities seem to exist mostly to hand out marketing material for media companies). But I can see a MOOC as a way to draw in potential learners who want more than just the overview that can be easily provided in a MOOC-style class.
That is-- and I'm going to I hope deal with this in my Best Practices assignment, though I'm at 1500 words and not there yet-- schools could have a MOOC utilizing the lecture and material about this topic easily available because, well, no entity in the world has more intellectual property (in the library and professor minds) than a university. But that would be a "loss leader," offered for free to get the 10% or 1% of users who want more -- more instruction, more answers from a professor, more assignments, more community. For that smaller group, there could be set up more in-depth courses with instructor-presence and all the community aspects we've seen-- discussion forums, archives, email lists, study groups, and so on.
That is, the MOOC shouldn't be "the course." Rather it should be seen as sort of the equivalent of a first-year survey course, a once-over-lightly overview of the major ideas, principles, thought-modes, pertaining to the topic, kind of like "British Lit 101", where most of the learners will get out of that what they're looking for ("Shakespeare came AFTER Chaucer! Who knew?"). But those intrigued by something in the overview might then go on to more specialized classes that are not offered as MOOCs but more like upper-level seminars with smaller groups, assignments, and deeper knowledge, like "Eighteenth Century Poetry 312".
I suspect that's the use universities (rather than outside groups and companies) will be making of MOOCs. There's also the possibility, as Patricia (I think? or Michelle?) pointed out in another discussion, that universities will use MOOCs to establish MOONs, networks where those expert in or interested in the topic can meet in a global forum to create more and more knowledge about this subject.
That is, MOOCs can be a step on the way to something else, not an end in themselves. Jeep I think spoke of MOOCs as something like the university library-- a repository of information to be used to create knowledge.
Alicia

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Document-an-Open-Letter/138937/

"'An Open Letter to Professor Michael Sandel From the Philosophy Department at San Jose State U.'

from Divine:

Hello Alicia that is a solid response.

Yes, you are very correct the blogging tool was inappropriate for that task. You suggested email and more others.  This would be my suggestion for tools to be used for a project like that:

·         For asynchronous Group Project Management, Online Collaboration and a Central landing-hub for all group work activities  I  - use a wiki (I use WikiSpaces … @   www.wikispaces.com )

It’s free

·         For synchronous / asynchronous online group collaboration I – use Google Drive @ www. (www.Google.com) It’s free

·         For Social Presence (Synchronous and Asynchronous) I – use AnyMeeting / Voice thread. ‘

·         For Professional work  and if  you have a budget  use GO TO MEETING

However, for your project it is free … , free,  free for  up to 200 members. That is a deal. I use ANYMEETING for family WEBCONFERENCING. Cheaper than ATT… Free.  I have family all over the world so I train online ,  my relatives how to video conference for free.

Application –

 we use AnyMeeting to discuss family issues from three continents online simultaneously:

My parents – Africa (Cameroon)

My Sisters and Brother – Europe (United Kingdom and Holland  ... respectively)

Myself – North America (Texas , U.S.A.  yeee)

AT and T does not like that.

Embedded in the class conference, are short video clips explaining

·       Why you should use Wikispaces for online collaborative projects you talked about;

 A video link to why you should not use email at all.

Click to play : http://youtu.be/-dnL00TdmLY

·       See conference for AnyMeeting  how- to video clip.

·       Why you SHOULD USE a wiki ( like wikispaces .com )  for collaboration

Please see a link to my WIKISPACES FOR  my class group project.. I built the site in 2 days

·         http://xyuniversity.wikispaces.com/

 (My Project Responsibility for the group) with  DETC 630  class with Dr Porto and Dr Blackburn  (Summer 2012)         CHEERS divineeseh

  ART PROGRAMS- DIVINE

 Snag-it

Prezi.com wins in terms of cost / affordability, learning curve,Access, Professional look and much