What We Call Stuff

D’Arcy Norman is one of my inspirations. Usually once a day or so he posts something that intrigues or challenges me. This is what I found when I woke this morning:

It’s very basic, but that’s the point of the video. Could come in handy in talking with faculty members – sometimes they have interesting concepts of what eLearning is (and isn’t)…

via Video: Sticky Concepts (introduction to) eLearning | D’Arcy Norman dot net.

I love this use of video. It’s right up there with the Common Craft stuff but there are a couple of things that bug me. Call me a curmudgeon but I really want us to be clearer about some of these constructs.

I know it’s popular to put e- in front of everything. Ever since Apple trademarked i- I suppose we needed a letter and e- for electronic is easier than c- or even cy- for cyber- even tho cy- might be more appropriate and accurate. In this case, since the video actually gives examples that are electronically mediated and not just computer mediated, I suppose the use of e- here is appropriate.

My real complaint is the use of Learning. While the authors allege to talk about electronically mediated activities for learning, what they mostly talk about are electronically mediated sources for teaching. The summary information about the learning environment that included syllabus, lecture notes, assignments, exam results, etc in particular made me question the appropriateness of the term Learning.

Take “syllabus” as an example. At its simplest a syllabus is merely an outline for a particular course of study. While these can be self-generated, typically they’re provided by faculty to tell students how much work they need to do to get a good grade. In a true e-learning platform, I think the platform itself becomes a kind of syllabus as the resources of interest get added to and removed from the environment based on the learner’s need.

At the moment e-learning platforms are much more student centered than these quick videos indicate. I think part of the reason for the oversimplification and the shift in perspective is because of the complexity of true elearning platforms, which really are an organizing component of a personal learning environment, and because mainly these videos target teachers (not students) and telling a teacher they’re not the center of the learning universe has predictably Copernican implications.

I do applaud the producers for including the little bit about web 2.0 connections they added at the end, but I think that really does say a lot about how the producers feel about web 2.0 and its relationship to the e-learning platform–it’s something to be tacked on the end.

Let me offer my own e-learning platform as an example and maybe it’ll help explain why I think it’s a different construct on its face than the e-learning platform described in the video.

First, the components:
1. My computers. Yes, plural. I have a collection of computers to help me manage my learning. My windows based machine gives me access to a collection of communications tools that are not available on my Linux machines. Notably, this involves proprietary environments like Second Life, which have problems with the graphics adapters available on Linux based machines. My main Linux machine provides the horsepower I need to actually produce work like extended works in an audio format and web based development where I can prototype my web presentations without actually needing a connection to the web or exposing the draft work to the public while in development. Last, my netbook provides a handy tool for basic communications and production on the go. I can tuck it in my pocket and use it when I need more space or speed than my smartphone provides.

2. My smartphone. This lets me access people who are at a distance when I’m not at my computer. It also provides a rudimentary interface to web based resources while I’m away from my main connection points. It’s an mp3 player which I use for listening to content when my eyes are otherwise occupied, and a camera that lets me record images of things that might take too long to describe or that can serve as visual referents. (I can take a picture of a plant which I can then show to an expert in order to find out what it is, for example.) It’s also an e-book reader and I use it to read texts when I’m waiting for something else to happen (grocery line, cooking dinner, picking up kids from school, etc). It might be worth noting that I also have dedicated devices for MP3 playing, taking digital images, and reading ebooks. The smartphone has the advantage of being always with me, while I need to make special arrangements to use the dedicated devices.

How I use these devices to manage and organize my learning will probably take a post by itself, but really boils down to asking what do I want to learn and what resources am I using to learn it. The challenge is integrating the many devices in ways that make sense to me so that the resources I want are available to me when and where I want them. The simple answer is, of course, I use my brain to organize the disparate components and only need to remember which place to find the information I want in the context that I find myself using.

Please notice that all this stuff in my personal e-learning network provides me with access to the kinds of environments described in the video, but those environments are only pieces of a much larger picture that comprises the real e-learning platform of my experience. Moreover, the e-components form a subset of my larger personal learning environment (or personal learning network) which includes resources that are both e- and not e-.

Bottom line: We’ve gone too far in simplifying complex constructs to facilitate understand when the simplification mis-represents reality. We need to be careful of that–although I did like the line, “As much E- as necessary and as much human as possible.” I wonder if the producers meant to include the learner as part of the human bit.


Weblogg-ed » Who’s Asking?

Will Richardson is one of the pathfinders in this wilderness of education. He’s had a lot of interesting ideas and this is another one.

So here’s the deal with the change that many of us in this conversation are clamoring for in schools: we’re about the only ones talking it. The townsfolk down at the corner store aren’t demanding “21st Century Skills,” technology in every student’s hand, an inquiry based curriculum and globally networked classrooms. By and large the parents and grandparents in our communities aren’t asking for it. The national conversation isn’t about rethinking what happens in classrooms. No one’s creating assessments around any of this. And in fact, outside of the small percentage of people who are participating in these networks and communities online, the vast majority of this country and the world doesn’t even know that a revolution is brewing.

via Weblogg-ed » Who’s Asking?.

Is the problem so far under the radar that nobody else is seeing it?

If it’s such a hidden problem, do we know it really exists?


Design: Art, Science, Craft

The boffins from The Obligatory What Do We Call It Dept have sent in today’s question: What is design?

We’ll have a reading for you that’s specific to instructional design, but this morning, consider the idea of designing in general. Is it an art? A science? A craft? Maybe something else?

Administrators would really like it to be a science, I think. If you could have a process that you follow and it always yields predictable and replicable results within some envelope of variability, then planning becomes much easier. If you know three people can reliably design a good course in twenty hours using a particular process then you have a recipe for success.

But even recipes have flaws–variations in ingredients, errors in measurement, and even mechanical breakdown in the equipment. Your bread won’t bake very well if your oven is broken. In theory, a recipe would be a good thing, but the problem is generalization. It’s all well and good to make a recipe for bread. You have the general wheat flour recipe, modify it for specific conditions, and you can get relatively reliable results. Notice I didn’t say “quality results” but rather “reliable” ones.

I think many educators believe design is a craft. The process combines technology, experience, knowledge, and inspiration to create a useful entity. It doesn’t matter if you’re creating a vegetable peeler or a geometry class. In this idea of craft, we find the cook. A cook takes the things he or she knows and is able to combine them using familiar techniques and tools to create meals that are pleasing to the palate and nutritious. Certainly there is a workman’s ethic in this ideal of design–even as we apply it to instructional contexts.

Personally, I see design as art. Art is an expression of the human. In the best design we go beyond the mundane craft and explore inspiration. No longer are we talking about a cook, but rather the chef–that individual who, through science and craft, creates an inspiration. In the world of instructional design, many people are willing to settle for craft, but those who understand it best know that an educational experience needs to be–by definition–transformational. The students who experience the design need to leave the experience fundamentally changed from where they began it and for that, I maintain, one must go beyond the predictability and replicability of science, beyond the product of craft, and seek the inspiration of art.


The Process

The basic ideas of instructional design are not necessarily intuitive, even to an experienced teacher. The challenge in this instructional task, as in any other, is not merely answering the question of “How do we impart the knowledge?” There are a lot of questions that all need answering at the same time, and frequently we need the answers to some before we can get answers to others, but we go into cog-lock because we can’t know the answers to *those* questions until we get the answers to *these* and it cascades.

So we’re reduced to an iterative approach – a kind of gestalt mindset – that prompts us to try to answer all the questions at once, adjusting the answers on subsequent passes. Here are some of the questions we need answers to (in no particular order):

  • What do we want the learners to learn?
  • What do they know already?
  • How will we communicate with them?
  • How will they communicate with us?
  • How will they communicate with each other?
  • How much time do we have?
  • What tools do we have?
  • How will we know if they learned it?
  • How can we make it better the next time we try to teach?

For many classroom based teachers, a lot of the answers to these questions are already cast in stone. For others, the world is more flexible. In a lot of cases, the answers are not known, or mis-understood. The “what do they already know” question in particular is often reduced to “Have they taken the prerequisite class?” Any teacher who starts up a class with such a prerequisite requirement knows the futility of building on an assumed foundation. Even in the best of well-regulated learning environments, students outnumber scholars, and those who learned enough to pass the test are ill prepared to use that knowledge once the final grade has been assigned.

With that in mind, we’ll be spending a week or so back filling, laying down a substrate of river gravel for drainage and working toward an even foundation for us to use going forward. Some of you will pour concrete. Others might drive a stake or two. In the end, we’ll see how many of the structures remain standing when the course is over and you all move in–or move on.


Advanced Instructional Design

A new semester kicks off at Morehead University this morning and with it a new opportunity to explore some of the dimensions of instruction.

I’m particularly keen to get going with some of the more advanced ideas in instructional design more explicitly. The course will look at social learning, models of cognition, and models of instructional design that facilitate learner centered learning. A key to this effort will be getting the students to be learner centered after decades of being taught what, when, and how to think.

We’ll be breaking down the fourth wall on the instructional space and playing games with varying depths of instruction. We will, perforce, be limited to the digital realm, but I’m looking forward to seeing how far we can push this envelope before it breaks.


The hidden curriculum…

I’ve been noticeably absent from posting these last few weeks. I wanted to see if you’d develop a discourse without me. You did … if it’s not exactly the discourse I would have liked to see, I’m still impressed that it developed in what was largely a vacuum.

This is by way of introduction of this post that came to me via retweet from @dpeter a few minutes ago …

This led me to the conclusion that few 21st century learning priorities are less about technical skills, tools, services, software or hardware but far more social, cultural and behavioural as they relate to states of being, thinking, feeling and acting with technology.

via melaniemcbride.net » The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning.

It echoes a lot of what I’ve been saying early on in the class, but also takes it the extra step forward. When we hear about a “hidden agenda in education” it’s most often referencing a social agenda involving faith and values — and here’s a fresh take on that idea.

What do you think?


Advanced Tools: A Summary

I wrote about some Exotic Tools when we first started out here and I’m not sure the list has changed much here either. These are tools that can be used to augment the tools that already exist, or in some cases to provide a specialize function.

Podcasting is one of the new tools to make it into the educator’s lexicon — if not the way I’d like to see it. I wrote up an explanation of what the issues are back in ’06.

Podcasting didn’t exist before September, 2004. I first got interested in the technology in November of 2004 when I started listening to Adam Curry’s “Daily Source Code.” At the time, there were, maybe 200 podcasters. Today, there are thousands.
Podcasting

My biggest problem with educational use of the term “podcast” is that mostly they’re not podcasting. They’re just using digital audio archives to augment instruction. This is a good practice and I approve of it, but it’s not podcasting. I have some experience with podcasting on a personal basis and my problem with the way educators use the term is that by ignoring the reality of RSS delivery of content, they’re forgoing the benefit of using that distribution channel — which is really where the power of podcasting resides.

The use of immersive environments is another tool that I think many educators get wrong.

As we consider spaces like SecondLife, or Oddessey the value of those spaces is not as “virtual classrooms.” Remember that my belief is that classrooms are for teaching and not for learning. The last thing I want to do is take these opportunities for interaction and turn them into lecture halls. There is no value in creating a 3d space with 3d desks where 3d avatars (digital puppets) can sit and see a 3d teacher use a 3d projector to put a 2d PowerPoint-analogue on a 3d screen at the front of the 3d room. This is just pointless. It’s such an egregious misuse of the technology that I just don’t understand why so many educators believe that this is a Good Idea.
Immersive Environments

There’s a lot of information in that post about MUDs and MOOs that some of you might be able to use.

Finally, tools are tools. Their effectiveness is directly related to two aspects and both aspects need to be taken into consideration when selecting and using them. First, how suited is the tool to the task. Driving screws with a hammer is possible, but not recommended. Likewise trying to use a screwdriver on a nail can be a frustrating experience. Second, how proficient you are in the use of the tool makes a huge difference on the effectiveness of that use. It doesn’t matter how well suited a Bridgeport Milling Machine is to the creation of an aluminum fitting if you have no idea how to program the Bridgeport to do what you want. The difficulty here is one of incremental understanding. Most of you wouldn’t attempt to use a Bridgeport because you’d have a hard time finding the on switch. Your understanding of that particular tool is so low as to preclude your attempting to use it. What about other tools? Do you really know how a blog works? What we do with it to foster learning? How about a threaded discussion? Or a whiteboard? Or a textbook?

Are you sure?


Basic Tools

Everybody has had a chance to put up a set of tools.

I posted mine in 2006 and the list hasn’t changed much.

What I didn’t put in there was what purpose I think each tool serves and why I’ve included it. Those are questions I’ve left to you.


Scope?

Scope is one of those awkward topics. What do we mean by scope?

The normally accepted mantra of the distance education community is “anywhere, any time.” Never content to allow the status to quo (because we all know “the status is NOT quo”), I’ve rephrased that to “everywhere, all the time.” This puts a drain on teachers who wind up being “on duty” 24/7 unless they’re willing to tell their students, “No, sorry, my time is more important to me than your learning is.” Of course, nobody’s online 100% of the time. Not even me. But as we consider scope, it’s important to keep in mind.

via phaedrus » Blog Archive » Scope Redux.

There’s a trail there to be followed, back through to 2006. Do you think things have changed?


What Do We Do With This?

Here’s a recycled article from the first year I taught the class.

In our examination of the scope of distance education, we want to spend a little time talking about what we aren’t doing — or aren’t doing very well. Almost 20% of people older than 25 in the US don’t even have a high school diploma. Is that ok? One in five? Only 23% have a bachelors degree or higher. In the US economy that’s the base level credential that lets you apply for a job. But three out of four people don’t have one. So what? When you finish your MA’s you’ll be part of the rarified group (6%) of the population with an advanced degree.

via phaedrus » Blog Archive » Why NOT?.

I’m very aware that most of the people in the class are immediately and directly looking for information they can use in their classrooms. There’s some data.

How can we deal with this issue of an uneducated populace? Should we?