Twenty-one days ago the class started with a flurry and a bang. The list of things to do was long, strange, and not explained much. For many of you, it was a voyage to the Geek Isles, but there was a method in my madness. There were several objectives in this first unit.
First, the surface objective was to introduce you to some of the concepts and constructs of distance education to begin getting you in tune with the differences between what you think distance education is, and what distance education really is.
To do that, I had to link you up so we could all communicate — not just with each other but with the world. That was the second objective. By linking you together outside of the Blackboard shell, I was able to show you a wider context and provide you with hands on experience using tools that you’d never have even known about had we only stayed behind the wall. I was able to link you to resources and people — some of whom have responded to you — in ways that you’d never have been able to do in Blackboard.
The third objective was to begin introducing you to patterns of instruction and learning that are different from what you’re used to as classroom teachers, students, and Blackboard users. We tend to “go with what we know” and so I needed to get you to know other things, other ways of doing, and other perspectives on what you know. Systems theory postulated that you cannot change a stable system. You must first make it unstable so you can introduce the changes that will permit stabilization in a new configuration.
The fourth objective was to get you to consider learning, not as the other half of Education, but as an independent activity that you do all the time, every day, regardless of whether you get a grade for it or not.
Some of these objectives I shared with you. Some I concealed. I do not subscribe to the notion that you need to put all the cards on the table at once in order to teach. Some of the most exciting learning happens through discovery and that discovery is often colored — and even destroyed — if the learner has too much information in advance. What fun is a murder mystery if you know whodunnit before the body’s discovered?
I’m pleased with the way you all rose to the challenges and the ways you have begun to grow.
September 9th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
[...] See Unit One Recap [...]
September 9th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
I really was challenged by all the new technology (and still am). It’s interesting what you said about not putting all the cards out on the table, initially. When I taught in public school, one of the things we were required to do each day was to write the objective on the board. The student will: ….. so that the students would always be able to state what they are learning. Just thought I’d mention that. I remember being taught several years ago in education classes NOT to teach to the test. It seems now everything is test driven and if it’s not on the test, it isn’t taught. I know I’m overstating it a bit, but education has become very test driven and as you mentioned before, the question, “Is this going to be on the test?” is often the only motivation for knowing something. At any rate, the immersion in technology and ways to use it has been very beneficial to me and I’m looking forward to being able to apply it.
September 9th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Yup. I’m an iconoclast on the objectives thing. I believe that every lesson needs to have an objective. I’m ok with that. Where I digress is in whether or not I lay the objective out in advance. When it comes to exploratory and constructivist learning, telling the student what they’re supposed to discover before they’ve had a chance to do the discovery is brain-dead. The POINT of that style of educational experience is the discovery process.
September 9th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
You did challenge us. It was almost as it is when a foreign language student is tossed into total immersion and it is either sink or swim. Most will end up learning to swim. It has been a great learning experience and I look forward to learning much more!
September 10th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
For awhile, teaching to the test seemed to be a hushed topic. That is what we were doing and everyone knew what we were doing, but now we talk openly about and plan our lesson objectives specifically for CATS testing . It seems like we do more documentation and testing than teaching.
In my experience, which I grant is limited, students do not perform as well when they are told that they are learning. Some, if fact, won’t do the work if they know the expected end result.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
It was really nice being introduced to different resources other than Blackboard to demonstrate a distance learning environment!
September 11th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
I agree, the past module has been very interesting, I never dreamed that I would learn so much. However, I realize that yes we do what we know, and yes, sometimes I just teach the way that I know and it seems boring to me at times, so I know that it must be boring to my students. And yes sometimes I go to back and see who the murderer is, and then read the book.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
I hate to piggy back what Lexie has already said, but I feel the same way. We learn something new, which cannot retain a constant state of newness, and fall into the groove of doing it over and over and over and over. There is a comfort that comes with mastery, and many teachers get comfortable. There was a poster in one of my undergraduate classes with the following slogan- “Teaching is learning twice”. I had always agreed with the statement until now. It isn’t learning twice, it’s to keep on learning.