Quote of the week

Image from
http://quotes4all.net/aristotle.html



"Those who educate children well are more to be honored than parents, for these only gave life, those the art of living well".

Mr Aristotle, sir.

"You don't need a license to have kids, but you do to teach them".

Mr Wright, sir.

Wow

Having spent a short time looking at learning theories and pedagogy within the limited scope of the GDLT coursework, we are now delving into the information and communication technologies themselves a little more.  It seems that many of my fellow learners haven't spent a lot of time with digital images or podcasts or videos and are as unfamiliar with them as they are with placing hyperlinks in online documents.  Much as some cohorts were uncomfortable or inexperienced with blogging or had trouble getting their head around the idea of wikis, there was also a sizeable percentage that had a fair amount of experience in these technologies.  I wait to see what my fellow students come up with, but one thing is for sure, the best, most fun, original ideas are not necessarily likely to come from those of us who think we know a fair bit about computers and the web.  It is perhaps these fresh, uncluttered minds that may come up with the most amazing ideas.

Not particularly original, but...

I have created a wiki called Mr Wright, Sir. 

The first use for this space is for the student sub-group I call the "Tail-Enders", made up of us CQU GDLT students with surnames from S - Z. From time to time it may be useful for us to use a wiki for online collaboration, rather than other available, less flexible and clunky tools, such as Moodle Forums. 

That doesn't mean to say if your surname ends in a letter other than S - Z that you can't join us. Click here to join the wiki'd gang :o)
 
We were asked to contribute, collaboratively, to an Experts' Jigsaw on "Literacy in the Classroom".  We'll soon see how useful wikis are for this sort of task.  Learning about learning, in action!

Assessment 1 - Learning Design

This blog entry is a little different to the preceding postings, in that it is submitted as Assessment 1 of the ICTs for Learning Design course for the GDLT at CQU Rockhampton.  The assessment requirements prescribe that it be written in academic style, so no smiley faces :o( 

It is a conclusion synthesising our learning, and posting recommendations for our own practice when participating in, and designing eLearning, drawing together our reflections from three previous blog reflections: My Profile Wiki, Learning Theories Wiki and Mobile Phones Wiki.  Due to the limited word allowance, prior reading and understanding of theories, descriptors and tools has been assumed, for example, there is no detailed explanation of my understanding of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, as that is taken as read.  For amplification on these areas, please refer to my earlier blogs. 

Another Learning Design Framework?

Ok, so the Word published file formatting went a little haywire, so here it is embedded through http://www.docstoc.com/.  Great idea.

Learning Experience Plan

A blessing in disguise

So with my ICT notes being held hostage by my desktop PC (on the blink, see last post), I was forced encouraged to read my Pedagogical Content Knowledge notes.  It's two weeks since I was introduced to the subject at Res School, so I'm playing catch-up (fortunately, I'm a speed reader).  Nagging at the back of my mind when doing the previous ITC course task was the thought that I'd come across a pretty good Learning Design Framework somewhere before.

Here it is - http://moodle.cqu.edu.au/file.php/11801/EPL_templates/2010_LEP_Final.doc. I assume it was drafted (or at least posted) by the PCK Course Coordinator, Rickie Fisher. 

Whilst it does not explicitly combine Bloom's Revised Taxonomy (Bloom's) and Kearsley and Shneiderman's Engagement Theory (ET), these can easily be encompassed.  For example, Bloom's fits neatly under "Intended Learning Outcomes" as can the the Donate principle of ET.  The Relate and Create elements of ET fit well within the main body of the "Learning Processes and Procedures" to be employed, e.g. a learner-driven collaborative project.

I have attempted to get Word to publish the linked Learning Experience Plan/Learning Design Framework directly to this blog.  Word tells me it has done so, but I've not seen it post yet.  Fingers crossed...

In the meantime, note to self: "Keep up with the your reading in all subjects!".

If cars were like computers

Thank goodness for my seven year old Sony VAIO.  My super-duper HP desktop has crashed again locking me out from my ICT notes.  Looks like I might actually have to start my PCK reading ;o)

Computers are like cars.  Or our reliance on them both, more like.  We love our cars and our computers and take them for granted, until the day they let us down (nothing to do with us not servicing or maintaining them properly, of course).  Anyway, this reflection of the similarities between the two technologies (thus enabling me to blog about them here) reminded me of the (apocryphal) spat between Microsoft and General Motors.  Old, but amusing, reproduced here (for your amusement) from snopes.com:-

At a recent COMDEX, Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated: "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving twenty-five dollar cars that got 1,000 miles per gallon."

Recently General Motors addressed this comment by releasing the statement: "Yes, but would you want your car to crash twice a day?

• Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to buy a new car.  
• Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason, and you would just accept this, restart and drive on.  
• Occasionally, executing a maneuver would cause your car to stop and fail and you would have to re-install the engine. For some strange reason, you would accept this too.  
• You could only have one person in the car at a time, unless you bought Car95 or CarNT. But, then you would have to buy more seats.  
• Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast, twice as easy to drive - but would only run on 5 percent of the roads.  
• The Macintosh car owners would get expensive Microsoft upgrades to their cars, which would make their cars run much slower.  
• The oil, gas and alternator warning lights would be replaced by a single "general car default" warning light.  
• New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.  
• The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.  
• If you were involved in a crash, you would have no idea what happened."

 :o)

Designing a Universal Learning Design Framework

…is not an easy task, or there’d already be one design template or framework out there, right?  Whilst invited/instructed to read considerable warnings and guidance on working legally, safely and ethically online, I haven’t read the small print that no doubt says that CQU owns the copyright to anything useful, or (more usefully) valuable that we come up with during our studies - yet.  Once an ex-lawyer, always an ex-lawyer.

 The course reading leads us to accept that there are three detailed, multi-faceted areas  that need to overlap and combine productively, to create the best learning experience: C = Content, P = Pedagogy and T = technology.  That’s why it’s complex.

From cartoonstock.com



I’m not sure I agree that these should be seen as three distinct areas.  I think there have always been technological pedagogical aids, from slates to abacuses, pencils to word processors.  Certainly, there is a proclaimed technical revolution, but I think of it more as evolution, albeit very rapid.  For example, we talk of the permanent nature of wikis, enabling learners and teachers to gauge progress, and to return and reflect.  Think of the leap in this exact area when learning technology progressed from slate to paper.  Looking more from the learner’s perspective, look at the increased efficiency from quills to Biro (and, of course, White Out ;o).  Consider how much quicker a classroom could progress with the impact of that ‘basic’ technology.  The current ICT evolution is astounding in the explosive nature of its growth, its breadth, its complexity, and its potential, but it still remains just one tool, one facet of a teacher’s effective pedagogical content knowledge strategy.  So perhaps rather than thinking of technology as a separate T, it should be considered an integral T, integral to both P and C?

Mobile Phones Wiki Reflections, Hello? Hello? Can you still hear me?

Our course is definitely heavily into constructivism so far - not only personal and individual but collaborative.  That's not to say we're left to sink or swim on our own.  Our learning is scaffolded and, sometimes just in time, sometimes a little late for some, additional support is provided, a life-ring is thrown to us to help us, perhaps to plug a gap in our knowledge or to bridge over from one task to another (please excuse the mixed metaphors).

Our blog reflections were supposed to be scaffolded using a template provided.  I didn't ignore the template in my early reflections, I just didn't know enough to comment on the aspects of connectivism, behaviourism, etc.  I think it is a really useful way to try to ensure learners focus in the direction the course wishes to steer them.  Ok, so even when I know what I'm "supposed" to do, doesn't mean I'm going to do it.  I'm a HOTtie, remember?  Give me enough rope and I'll find the tallest building...

Quote of the week

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
But, in practice, there is"



http://math2033.uark.edu/wiki/index.php/Rock_Paper_Scissors

 This quote is attributed to Lawrence Peter "Yogi" Berra  AND to Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut (nothing seems clear cut on this course), so perhaps they'd better "rock off" for it?

On reflection (bearing in mind the latter's current deceased state), I think I'll attribute it to Yogi Berra, as a) his name is easier to spell, b) he might get upset if I don't (he is still alive) and c) van de Snepscheut allegedly bludgeoned his wife (Terre), then set their home on fire. Whilst Terre survived, he perished in the blaze. 

Learning Theories Wiki - Reflections

Reflections on a collaborative wiki this time.  Not that we weren't expressly forbidden to alter, add to or comment on other’s profiles in the Profile Wiki(!), but were not encouraged to do so.  This learning task specifically invited us to do so in this Learning Theories Wiki. We were to work together in pairs (or more) to choose, consider and write about a "learning theory" (LT) that interested us.  We were scaffolded into using the Profile Wiki to choose a learning partner that we resonated with and were further scaffolded to using a "Plus, Minus, Interesting" (PMI) method of analysing the material. 

Immediately we're moving into higher order thinking.  We're not just copying and pasting (identifying and retrieving), nor just comprehending (understanding, paraphrasing), but we're analysing, critiquing, judging and transforming knowledge.  I will use the PMI tool again.  I think most learners would appreciate its benefits, even if the lazy thinkers find it makes their brains tired.


The World's Largest Pavlova, 50 square metre meringue
capable of feeding 10,000 people., made with 10,000
egg whites and more than 600kg of sugar
in the shape of a rugby field, to coincide
with a Bledisloe Cup rugby match!

Our partnership-created PMIs were then to be posted to the Learning Theories Wiki to create an "Expert Jigsaw" (the words silk purse and pig's ear come to mind).  The jigsaw is an excellent idea to divide up a task too large for an individual into sizes manageable enough for a group, the idea being a bit like a BYO plate dinner party.  There are behavioural aspects at work here: everyone always raves over your Pavlova (excuse the pun), so that's what you bring each time.  Conscientious learners will wish to avoid letting down the team and will put 100% into their contribution.  Others might have just picked up a bucket of KFC on their way to the party.  The jigsaw in this particular task got a little large and unwieldy, partly due to technological restrictions (a bad workman always blames his tools) and partly due to the depth that some analyses went.

A great example of collaborative construction, IF people bought into it.  How many people read the whole 30-odd pages of PMIs?  How many of them trusted their cohorts to make a decent Pav and how many bought Sarah Lee's as a back-up ("deeply embedded and intractable...habits", Mezirow, 1990, “Fostering Critical Reflection In Adulthood”)?  The whole time-saving idea behind the jigsaw is to avoid the necessity of each learner reading all the LTs themselves.  But the what if the jigsaw had a piece missing, or put in upside down, or in the wrong place?  Taking this exercise a couple of steps further would, I submit, have allayed some of those fears and made the whole process more satisfactory and the result more valuable:-

My Profiles reflections - was it Wiki'd?

At the beginning of our course, we had to complete a personal profile template about ourselves, and post it on a wiki.  The profiles were to be used to enable us to get to know the 100-odd (and believe me, some of us are odd) other students on our course, with a particular view to working with them on a Learning Theories task (more of which later).  Straight in with real "show and tell" connectivism learning task.

I was pleased that there was a template.  It's often difficult to know how much to write about yourself (if you haven't noticed yet, I talk a lot); what to say; what might be interesting or relevant.  I'm sure some learners did not like the template - scaffold might mean supportive structure to some, but a public execution to others.  If there hadn't been explicit permission to lie about your age, I'm sure some of my cohorts would have been even less comfortable.

To blog or not to blog...

Reflections on blogging.

 

I like talking. I’m a sociable kind of person. I think I’m entertaining (the more you drink, the more entertaining I get). I’m ‘intrapersonal-smart’, so want to entertain and help others. I’m ‘interpersonal-smart’, so I’m interested in other people’s views of what I have to say. I’m linguistic-, logical- and visually-smart too, so all these (subjective) multiple intelligences of mine should point to the fact that I like blogging. I do. I hope you like me blogging too. If you do, please comment, or “follow” me. There are simple tick-box options to ‘rate’ my posts too: “interesting”, “funny” or ‘boring as…”. Please use them. Why?

Why “rate” my posts? Because I like gold stars. I like acknowledgement, appreciation, recognition and feed-back, and writing interesting posts gets gold stars. I’m like a little puppy, trying to be cute, adorable and entertaining. A little Pavlovian I know, and not just the canine reference, but in terms of measurable behaviour and positive reinforcement.

Pre-reflection reflections

Week 1 was supposed to be over on Sunday.  I still haven't finished the tasks.  I still need to blog my reflections of Week 1.  Here's a start - my time-sheet for Week 1.  We are supposed to allocate 10-12 hours a week to each of our four courses.  Here's how I spent my time on the first of my courses (ICTs for Learning Design):-

Moodle and Wiki issues	Finding way around, reading and answering forum posts	2
	Reading course tasks in several locations, emails, etc	1
Blog	Creating own blog, registering, formatting, first entry, gadgets, etc	2
Voki	Reading about use in classrooms of and designing Voki	1
Learning Style	Reading Felder and Solomon + doing questionnaire	1
	Reading around subject	1
	Blogging	0.75
Multiple Intelligences	Watching both Sir Ken Robinson’s videos, recording thoughts	1
	Reading BGfL notes + doing questionnaire	0.75
	Considering results of others and posting on forum	0.75
	Reading around and Blogging	1.25
21st Century Learners	Reading 4 articles plus reading around	3
	Considering, reflecting, blogging	3
Learning Theory	Reading Profile Wikis and cohorts blogs to choose partner for PMI	3
	Set reading	1
	Reading Jigsaw Wiki	1.5
	My PMI	0.75
Reflecting	Considering reflections scaffold and writing notes	2
	Viewing others’ blogs	3
Vyew	Registering and tutorial	0.75
Forum posts/emails	Reading, contributing	3
		33.5 hours

...and that's a conservative recording.  I spent more time getting lost, crashing my PC, crying like a baby ;o) etc, than I've recorded.  On top of that, I've spent around 5 hours helping, advising and consoling my course colleagues.  40 hours, easy.  Not 40 easy hours.  40 interesting hours though.  Why?  Why on ICTs alone?  Our first assignment is in ICTs and is due in 10 days time.

First reflection then?  I'm spending waaaaay too much time on ICTs.  Is this first week indicative of the time this course is going to take up every week?  If so, what am I going to do?  I have until 22 March to drop two courses (I've not even looked at) and go part-time, without financial penalties.

Advice anyone?

The school disco revisited

The girls are standing against one wall, covering their mouths, whispering, giggling, intimidating. They're wearing pastel-coloured ra-ra skirts and tank-tops, oh, and really bad hair-cuts.

The boys are slouching against the other wall, trying to act big, pretending to know the words to the songs, wondering if it's cool to know songs sung by girls like Kim Wilde.  We're wearing denim jeans, with white lines down the front where mum has ironed creases into them, over and over, despite you begging her not to. Oh, and really bad hair-cuts.

Is Marc Prensky the new Stan Zemanek?

Is Prensky the academic equivalent of Kyle Sandilands the shock jock? Sensationalist? One-dimensional? Biased? Or is code the new Latin? Is programming the next literacy? 

Talkback radio presenters tend to be ‘like or loathe’ personalities.  They know that to increase their ratings, they need to engage or enrage.  Spout a provoking or emotional headline and watch the phone-lines light up.  As we’re bombarded by a multitude of sound bites, blanket press coverage and political spin, we realise that this is the way of the present.  Blame ICTs.  No sooner has something outrageous been said then it’s been published to millions.  So why do we bother with these tit-bits, knowing full well they’re often inflammatory remarks delivered solely to grab attention?  Perhaps it’s as James McKenzie Ed.D,  Editor of From Now On - The Educational Technology Journal says “simple-minded thinking is often attractive”.

I like the concept of pitting academic against academic in a bout of intellectual sparing, as per the Cerebrum debate on the Dana Foundation website when Howard Gardner and James Traub debated the concept of multiple intelligences.  It’s like a pre-election TV debate.  But perhaps to be more engaging with today’s ICT-savvy youth, such debate could be made more in the style of an academic “Celebrity Deathmatch”? 

Cricket rules for auditory leaners

So now is everyone clear?

It's just not cricket

For those Word Smart learners out there, may I present the English game of cricket?

There are two sides, one out in the field the other one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.

When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game.

And for those Visual learners:-

So is everyone clear now?

How smart am I?

Answer: pretty damn smart.  Full scores in all SMART areas.  It seems I’m Body Smart, Word Smart, Number Smart, People Smart, Myself Smart, Music Smart, Picture Smart and Nature Smart.  But that’s just how it seems. 

Really I’m just Arse Smart (or vice versa).  You see I simply manipulated the scores by answering the questions to make me look “smart”.  Not very smart, you may be thinking, but I’m thinking about just how much weight to put on such tests.