Thanks to everyone for the aid!l This will be messy as I'm just copying all the links. And I'm putting the actual post early in the semester so it's not blocking the front page:
Links and comments from class
Showing posts with label Links from others. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Links from others. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
links and apps I might need
My classmates and the instructors have been so good at posting and suggesting useful stuff, and what happens when I no longer has access to the class? Will I lose them? Best to list them here, and always have them:
Thanks to everyone for the aid!l This will be messy as I'm just copying all the links. And I'm putting the actual post early in the semester so it's not blocking the front page:
Links and comments from class
Thanks to everyone for the aid!l This will be messy as I'm just copying all the links. And I'm putting the actual post early in the semester so it's not blocking the front page:
Links and comments from class
Friday, July 19, 2013
Stuff for Community of Practice paper?
Perry, William G., Jr. (1981). Cognitive and ethical
growth: The making of meaning. In Arthur W.
Chickering and Associates, The Modern American College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 76-116.
Chickering and Associates, The Modern American College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 76-116.
Perry, William G., Jr. (1970), Forms of Intellectual and
Ethical Development in the College Years: A
Scheme (New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston); reprinted November 1998; Jossey-Bass; ISBN:
0787941182 .
UW Colleges Virtual Teaching & Learning Center
Cognitive
DevelopmentBelenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule's Women's
Ways of Knowing
- Ferris State University Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development has an excellent summary (which right now is offline, so until it returns, here's Wikipedia's entry, which isn't too bad).
- The original research is available in their book, Women's Ways of Knowing.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_development_theories
- Baxter Magolda's book Making Their Own Way: Narratives for Transforming Higher Education to Promote Self-Authorship offers a more extended summary of her work on self-authorship.
William
Perry's model of cognitive and moral development suggests that many/most
students come to college near the start of the journey, at "dualism"
where they see the world of knowledge as dividing into "right or
wrong" usually determined by a higher authority. (Baxter
Magolda updates this to call it "absolute knowing".)
We've
witnessed in first year college classes the collision between "what my
parents taught me" and everyone else's "what my parents taught
me", not to mention open academic thought. I had a student once who came
to my very large state u (who knows why her parents decided that was the place
for her) after being home-schooled by her parents. Her father was also, btw,
her minister. He'd disagreed on some theological point with their previous
church, and founded his own church, with a congregation consisting of his own
children. Talk about absolute knowing-- she had not previously been exposed to
ANY adult voices that weren't Mom and Dad, who were pretty literally speaking
from a Godlike perspective. She was a nice young lady and certainly didn't
argue with all the diverse viewpoints encountered in a large urban university
classroom, but she was appalled. Scared. And she never did break out. All of
her papers, regardless of the assignment, were some version of "how I came
to Jesus with Dad's help." She dropped out before the end of the semester.
But I've always thought of her as an example of someone who couldn't move
beyond the dualism, for whom divergent viewpoints were a threat.
Then
again, some students arrive in or quickly achieve "multiplicity"--
"everyone's got their own opinion, equally valid." This is an
advance, but does it require "negotiation"? Acceptance, yes, but
"negotiation" would seem to require discussion. These are the
students who are quite comfortable with assignments like "literature
reviews" and "annotated bibliographies" which require the
neutral summary of other viewpoints. But they still need to progress to be able
to evaluate, consider, choose, or even analyze.
I
teach "thesis" in classes- how to cogently express the point of your
paper. And the initial posting of a student's thesis can often place him/her
pretty squarely in dualism or multiplicity. The dualist will present an
opinion-- "this is right." Everything is an argument paper, and the
thesis is the judgment. The multiplicity dweller will generally post some
statement of fact (inarguable), or a sort of consensus of opinions without
further comment.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
More community of practice stuff
Harasim on COP--
(Side note: I bought the e-book of this as it was much cheaper, and THERE ARE NO PAGE NUMBERS! I didn't realize this could be a problem when I use quotes. I'll check the version on the "cloud reader" to see if that's more like a pdf with the page numbers.)
"COPs are groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this are by interacting on an ongoing basis." Wenger, 2002, p. 4-5.
From Barab, MacKinster, Scheckler (2004).
"Participation in a COP results in some outcome, whether it is an idea, a tool, drawing, online post, or simply becoming more knowledgeably skillful with respect to the practice.This process of transforming experience and the outcomes of experience into a thing is knows as reification" (p. 66).
Wenger (2002): "Knowledge lives in the human act of knowing."
Hmm. I don't think that's what really goes on in writing CoPs. It's more knowledge is created by the process of creating. That is, in my experience on the GEnie romance fiction roundtable-- still in my experience the greatest time of sharing and growing in writing knowledge-- we'd write, and then discuss the problems, issues, and solutions that arose in the writing, then as a group (or in back-and-forth) discuss why this problem might happen, where else it might happen (like in another book), and why the solution worked, or what other solutions could work. That is, we ended up building theories of fiction writing (particularly structure) based on the experience we had in creating and discussing the creations.
Harasim: "Historically, knowledge has advanced as communication technologies have improved," and uses the printing press as an example.
Printing press made possible widespread literacy.
"as the mechanisms to meet and share ideas improved, so too did scientific knowledge."
In 1992, in a heated desire to join friends on the GEnie network, I bought a primitive modem and learned to use it. (Anyone remember ATDT? and then some number? I don't even remember what that was for.) That is, the technology came and we all had to learn how to use it-- we became computer literate or modem literate in order to participate in the community.
Can't read printed books without being literate, but there's no way to become literate without books being available-- technology actually creates the need AND the ability to fulfill that need.
Another motivation-- in a CoP, even without a competitive element, you want to put your best face on. Wear your Sunday best, as my grandmother would say. If you're in the midst of articulate, able writers, before you post that passage from your book, you're going to revise and refine based on what the community has been discussing, so that you won't be embarrassed by inadequacy in front of your new friends.
So:
Community grows.
Members participate.
Discourse advances, sometimes very rapidly, through interaction.
Knowledge (new) results from the discourse and is recorded (in forums, the archives, etc).
Members take the new collective knowledge home and use it to create or revise their work (reify the knowledge), then come back and share the new product with others, adding more to the knowledge base.
I remember in those halcyon early days of GEnie, three of us (two of us are still close friends, united in part in mutual dislike of the third, poor thing) decided to write a "braided novel". (We all wrote in the same genre for the same publisher and editor.) The big thing was--- and this was put out as a marketing element-- we did all the brainstorming and writing online, in the GEnie roundtable, and other members would weigh in with comments and suggestions. Once I wrote what was sort of the center of the emotional plot, a big confrontation scene between a soldier and the wife who had been waiting at home. It had my signature graceful prose (if I do say so myself... that's really my big strength) and the emotionally-embedded sentences. I was over the moon with pleasure at it. And it went over well with the commenters, except one, a much more accomplished writer, said that it felt disjointed as a scene because the most threatening threat from him to her happened in the middle, so everything after that seemed an anticlimax. The other commenters agreed, and so I tried moving that part to the end of the scene. Voila, now there was an staircase of emotion, so that the greatest emotion was at the end.
That was a true Community of Practice-- we "practiced" as a group.
Must stress with paper-- writing communities are interesting to study because the "product" is part of the discourse, an occasion for the discourse, not just a reification of the knowledge but a part of the process of getting to the knowledge. And it's all immediate. It's not like, say, the bar association continuing legal ed (also a cop purpose) where the knowledge in the seminars is carried out and used outside the community later in a case-- in a writing community, the discourse leads immediately to the writing passage which is shared and then becomes another part of the process of knowledge-creation.
"Schools of thought and practice are based on shared texts." (Harasim paraphrasing Brown and Duguid 2000).
... "note the importance of text and documentes in generating new schools of thought and practice... the history of the internet as extending a long tradition of communities forming around documents: textual communities.
Harasim: "The term "cop" has evolved from an emphasis on apprenticeship within an organization to that of members sharing a common profession or type of work beyond an institutional affiliation... hared profession or work but not shared workplace... informal...voluntary. ... Members typical share: a comon language or set of terms related to their profession, practice, or interst;, a substantive common focus; common training or experience; acommon way of working or doing things; a common set of tools or technologies SEE IF IN AUTHONOMY THEY'RE ALL USING SCRIVENER OR SOME OTHER WRITING TOOL; a common tacit understanding of the topic."
\... there is generally a high level of cohesion and intentionality, if the group is to survive."
Authonomy-- apprenticeship program? With Jenny and Ellie both, as soon as they got published, they moved on. (Community had changed, but so did they-- didn't need it anymore?) Contrast with Lynn C's group, where they were "friends" and success didn't lead to an exit.
(Side note: I bought the e-book of this as it was much cheaper, and THERE ARE NO PAGE NUMBERS! I didn't realize this could be a problem when I use quotes. I'll check the version on the "cloud reader" to see if that's more like a pdf with the page numbers.)
"COPs are groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this are by interacting on an ongoing basis." Wenger, 2002, p. 4-5.
From Barab, MacKinster, Scheckler (2004).
"Participation in a COP results in some outcome, whether it is an idea, a tool, drawing, online post, or simply becoming more knowledgeably skillful with respect to the practice.This process of transforming experience and the outcomes of experience into a thing is knows as reification" (p. 66).
Wenger (2002): "Knowledge lives in the human act of knowing."
Hmm. I don't think that's what really goes on in writing CoPs. It's more knowledge is created by the process of creating. That is, in my experience on the GEnie romance fiction roundtable-- still in my experience the greatest time of sharing and growing in writing knowledge-- we'd write, and then discuss the problems, issues, and solutions that arose in the writing, then as a group (or in back-and-forth) discuss why this problem might happen, where else it might happen (like in another book), and why the solution worked, or what other solutions could work. That is, we ended up building theories of fiction writing (particularly structure) based on the experience we had in creating and discussing the creations.
Harasim: "Historically, knowledge has advanced as communication technologies have improved," and uses the printing press as an example.
Printing press made possible widespread literacy.
"as the mechanisms to meet and share ideas improved, so too did scientific knowledge."
In 1992, in a heated desire to join friends on the GEnie network, I bought a primitive modem and learned to use it. (Anyone remember ATDT? and then some number? I don't even remember what that was for.) That is, the technology came and we all had to learn how to use it-- we became computer literate or modem literate in order to participate in the community.
Can't read printed books without being literate, but there's no way to become literate without books being available-- technology actually creates the need AND the ability to fulfill that need.
Another motivation-- in a CoP, even without a competitive element, you want to put your best face on. Wear your Sunday best, as my grandmother would say. If you're in the midst of articulate, able writers, before you post that passage from your book, you're going to revise and refine based on what the community has been discussing, so that you won't be embarrassed by inadequacy in front of your new friends.
So:
Community grows.
Members participate.
Discourse advances, sometimes very rapidly, through interaction.
Knowledge (new) results from the discourse and is recorded (in forums, the archives, etc).
Members take the new collective knowledge home and use it to create or revise their work (reify the knowledge), then come back and share the new product with others, adding more to the knowledge base.
I remember in those halcyon early days of GEnie, three of us (two of us are still close friends, united in part in mutual dislike of the third, poor thing) decided to write a "braided novel". (We all wrote in the same genre for the same publisher and editor.) The big thing was--- and this was put out as a marketing element-- we did all the brainstorming and writing online, in the GEnie roundtable, and other members would weigh in with comments and suggestions. Once I wrote what was sort of the center of the emotional plot, a big confrontation scene between a soldier and the wife who had been waiting at home. It had my signature graceful prose (if I do say so myself... that's really my big strength) and the emotionally-embedded sentences. I was over the moon with pleasure at it. And it went over well with the commenters, except one, a much more accomplished writer, said that it felt disjointed as a scene because the most threatening threat from him to her happened in the middle, so everything after that seemed an anticlimax. The other commenters agreed, and so I tried moving that part to the end of the scene. Voila, now there was an staircase of emotion, so that the greatest emotion was at the end.
That was a true Community of Practice-- we "practiced" as a group.
Must stress with paper-- writing communities are interesting to study because the "product" is part of the discourse, an occasion for the discourse, not just a reification of the knowledge but a part of the process of getting to the knowledge. And it's all immediate. It's not like, say, the bar association continuing legal ed (also a cop purpose) where the knowledge in the seminars is carried out and used outside the community later in a case-- in a writing community, the discourse leads immediately to the writing passage which is shared and then becomes another part of the process of knowledge-creation.
"Schools of thought and practice are based on shared texts." (Harasim paraphrasing Brown and Duguid 2000).
... "note the importance of text and documentes in generating new schools of thought and practice... the history of the internet as extending a long tradition of communities forming around documents: textual communities.
Harasim: "The term "cop" has evolved from an emphasis on apprenticeship within an organization to that of members sharing a common profession or type of work beyond an institutional affiliation... hared profession or work but not shared workplace... informal...voluntary. ... Members typical share: a comon language or set of terms related to their profession, practice, or interst;, a substantive common focus; common training or experience; acommon way of working or doing things; a common set of tools or technologies SEE IF IN AUTHONOMY THEY'RE ALL USING SCRIVENER OR SOME OTHER WRITING TOOL; a common tacit understanding of the topic."
\... there is generally a high level of cohesion and intentionality, if the group is to survive."
Authonomy-- apprenticeship program? With Jenny and Ellie both, as soon as they got published, they moved on. (Community had changed, but so did they-- didn't need it anymore?) Contrast with Lynn C's group, where they were "friends" and success didn't lead to an exit.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
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/
Tutorials
Dr. Jane Bozarth and her community of practice – the TRAIN group.
Aaron;
Consistency discussion:
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
"'An Open Letter to Professor Michael Sandel From the Philosophy Department at San Jose State U.'
from Divine:
ART PROGRAMS- 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/
| ||||
| |||
Tutorials
- What is a Voice thread
- JUST PLAIN SIMPLE BUT YET ELEGANT
- MAKING PHONE IN COMMENTS
SOCIAL PRESENCE SAMPLES
FIRST SOCIAL PRESENCE EXAMPLE – HISTORY CLASS
SECOND SOCIAL PRESENCE EXAMPLE – ONLINE MBA CLASS
P/S here is a sample of Fliipping the classroom for effective instruction differentiation
https://ed.voicethread.com/share/4529983/
please open attachment if file failed to embed.
If you play this video (click the link)
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:
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:
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:
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
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
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?
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
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.
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:
Consistency discussion:
|
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/ |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
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
"'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
(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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)