Week One prezi thoughts

[Mark Nichols]

Interesting start! Personally I would have found some articles with lead-in questions more useful... it's hard to get a sense of context from slides alone. Will have to access some of the articles mentioned.

I'm afraid I didn't get off to too good a start. I hated the quote on the second slide:

Procuring information today has become very easy... The new task of the university and its faculty will be to teach how to collect, select, organise and criticise information this turning it into knowledge.

IMHO this represents a very impoverished view of education. How about the deeper aim of 'perspective transformation' (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_learning)? Aren't we here to change lives, rather than just 'turn information into knowledge'? For me the value of HE has always been in perspective transformation. If all HE aspires to is turning information into knowledge, well, we may as well close shop and just refer folk to Google! The "curriculumreform.org" quote is also a generalisation of the very worst in HE. There is plenty that I've seen contrary to the claim that "...curricula are largely separated from research, subjects are taught in disciplinary isolation, knowledge is conflated with information and is more often than not presented as static rather than dynamic". Elements of this may well be true in, say, first-year university study in some institutions but it's not characteristic of any final-year degree or PG programme I've ever been involved with (I may well be sheltered, or perhaps NZ is an exception...?)

There is plenty of criticism about HE, yet it remains an important investment for governments and participants. So, the presentation pushed a button for me (the 'purposed.org.uk Web site did not help!), in that I'm a wee bit tired of perspectives that take a critical rather than appreciative view of what higher education is about, and what it continues to achieve in the lives of graduates. It's way too easy to be cynical about HE and its workings. It's an easy target for critique. I reckon HE needs to be loved into improvement!

I did agree with the implied point that good education design can save us from an impoverished system. Perhaps this is the source of educational love HE should be seeking? Here at Open Polytechnic we do take educational design very seriously, so resonate with the overall outcome of the prezi.

Cheers!

[Stephen Bright]

Agreed Mark. I thought the Prezi slides had some useful content but weren't contextualised enough to give a clear direction or theoretical perspective. In contrast the MOOC I participated in with Curt Bonk last year had a much more coherent set of models and theories to guide it. And to be honest - the Prezi slides broke all the guidelines I hammer into academic staff about quality presentations - amount of text, font size, use of memorable images etc. so I was distinctly underwhelmed. Nice to catch up with you briefly at ASCILITE last year. I'm hoping for some rich interaction with the other participants - ka kite ano.

[Mark Nichols]

Hello Stephen! The northern hemisphere is no doubt asleep for the moment - I wasn't expecting any responses so quickly! All my cloud areas are in moderation, so hard to make a strong start. Looking forward to interaction across this course, too - appreciate your modelling it here.

Cheers,

Mark.

[Bronwyn Hegarty]

Hi Mark and Stephen
Great to see you both here, and I see John Milne is also on board. Like you Mark I had trouble concentrating on all the text on the prezi - not a good design model for sure. Though the messages were pertinent - education sure is in a pickle and people are always on the lookout for the next new thing to solve all the learning issues in the world. $60 million is a pretty ridiculous sum to spend on resources, and this harks back to the early days of e-Learning when consortiums threw big bucks at it. What is different now is that it is open and free to anyone who wants it. The $ spent are reflected in the quality of the resources, but again it is mainly about producing content. I have had a look at some of the approaches, and even so they do seem to be making an effort to encourage student/peer interaction.

The quote that you hated is about accessing and managing information and is another way of describing digital information literacy - a subject close to my heart. So I definitely agree with the need for it but I don't agree that it can be taught because if the learning environment is designed well these things should occur naturally. Is that why you hate it? We are here to transform yes, I agree, and information is knowledge but it depends on the way we support and mentor students otherwise they wont develop the skills to take meaning from the information - no meaning, no reflection equals no learning in my opinion. Teachers can't do it for their students but they can scaffold it, I believe.

I also agree with the idea that evaluation is important in learning design so it will be interesting to see how this topic is covered. Like you I am interested in exploring some of the resources - I wonder is there a list of them somewhere? As yet I am not sure what I disagree with - time will tell.
Dr Bron - ha ha

On Friday, 11 January 2013 12:17:49 UTC+13, Mark Nichols wrote:

[Apostolos Koutropoulos]

I suspect that the presentation was meant to poke at us to get a reaction ;-)

I understand what you are saying and I do think that the point of education should go beyond knowledge generation, both in the research sense and in the "learners take information and generate their own knowledge.

I am wondering, if from a societal level (thinking from a North American context) is learners are prepared for that. When i was an undergraduate I went to school so I can get a job.  Even my first Masters degree was very Job Focused.  I, and many of my classmates, expected clear answers, to muddy questions, so that we can go up the ladder in our organizations.  I still see this in learners today.  There are few learners that are comfortable with the answer "this is a gray area, and here are the competing thoughts." When education is paid for (and is expensive) you don't want 'weasel answers', you want something you can bet on.

On the other hand, I disagree that if knowledge generation is our only immediate goal, we should abdicate our responsibility to google.  Google doesn't exist in a bubble.  Google only works because we do! If we don't work, google doesn't work.  And just because google spits something out as a result, it doesn't mean that the result is any good.  Students still need to critically assess any and all information they get back for validity and applicability :)

[Apostolos Koutropoulos]

For me, the presentation was interesting. I wondered (when I introduced myself) what the difference was between Learning Design and Instructional Design.  In North America we see Instructional Design and not Learning Design.  I was wondering if it was one of those LMS <--> VLE distinctions (i.e. tomato, tomaaahto)

I have to say that I disagree that (good) instructional design is behaviorist and linear these days.  I think that at its inception ID was something that had behaviorist roots, only because behaviorism was very prominent in educational spheres and, as far as I can recall, ID formally started with the military in mind as a way to quickly prepare soldiers for overseas combat (WW II if I am not mistaken).  That said, anyone who falls back to a behaviorist model in ID is doing it wrong.  Anyone who is linear in their designs is also doing it wrong, because ID models are meant to be iterative.  Once you evaluate what happened, you need to go back and fix the issues that came up :)

[Heather Peters]

Hi Apostolos (and Mark),

I work with Mark at the Open Polytechnic.

I found this interesting: 

"That said, anyone who falls back to a behaviorist model in ID is doing it wrong.  Anyone who is linear in their designs is also doing it wrong, because ID models are meant to be iterative.  Once you evaluate what happened, you need to go back and fix the issues that came up :)"

I'm not certain what the 'behaviorist model' is in terms of ID....but the whole idea of behaviour analysis (as a discipline) is what you refer to as 'iterative' (pardon me for any misinterpretation of terminology as this is a whole new language for me) developing, evaluating, adjusting, (repeating cycle). The core of the field of experimental behaviour analysis is systematic observation, quantitative, objective analysis.

Looking forward to learning more.

Cheers,

Heather

[Mark Nichols]

Hiya Dr Bron (congrats again!) I’m just not convinced that “education sure is in a pickle”. It’s served me well, and you, too! In both of the institutions we work in we can see its benefit, and I know that you believe in the success of OP students as well as I do (even though we’re the ones who should have the acronym!) Education doesn’t seem too pickled to me. That’s not to say we can’t improve things, of course – my point is that I’d rather improve things based on an appreciation of education’s importance, not an easy bagging of something that clearly benefits so many individuals, societies and economies. That’s what pushed my button.

I’m not so sure that ‘open and free’ is the solution. Someone has to pay if education’s going to be of quality and make an effective difference.

My reference to ‘transformative learning’ likely needs context - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_learning. Wikipedia. Open and free! But, does Wikipedia give you an education…?

OK, off my little platform!

Mark.

[Mark Nichols]

Hiya Apostolos (and Heather!)

I think what Apostolos might be getting at with his reference to 'behaviourism' is a deterministic approach to education. The term is not usually well defined, as it's typically used in contrast to constructivism and (more recently) connectivism... it's not used in a strictly clinical sense. A good article on this (and one that talks of the value of behviourism even in 21st century pedagogies!) is Dron and Anderson's 2011 article in IRRODL: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/890/1663. Language has always been a significant problem for ODL!

Cheers,

Mark.

[Heather Peters]

"the value of behaviourism even in 21st century pedagogies"

*sigh*

The most commonly misconception is that behaviourism is not a continually progressing and alive science (you should see how it is covered in most intro level psych texts - you'd think all of us behaviourists are dead! :)

Behaviourism is a rapidly expanding field and thrives on cross-disciplinary research: behavioural economics, behavioural pharmacology, teaching, health, community...  The terms are sometimes labelled differently but draw on and apply principles and theories from behaviourism.

(Stepping down off my hobby-horse now.)

[Yishay Mor]

Hi Mark (and all),

The first recording of the presentation was marred by technical issues. I hope this one clarifies some of the questions:

http://www.olds.ac.uk/the-course/week-1/intro2ld

[Yishay Mor]

Mark pointed me to the concept of transformative learning. Interesting. 

In fact, I think that curriculumreform.org and the forthcoming Elkana & Klopper book would favour this approach. So my question is: how do you design for transformative learning? And will your project demonstrate that?

Yishay

p.s. I work in HE, so I am the last one to say its all bad. Still, we have some work to do..

On Thursday, 10 January 2013 23:17:49 UTC, Mark Nichols wrote:

[George Veletsianos]

I think that Yishay has the millior dollar (million quid?) question here when he asks "how do you design for transformative learning?" I thikn that's an important question because traditional instructional design has focused on solving problems and reducing inefficiencies (in the words of David Merrill, "effective, efficient, and engaging" designs), and individuals in the field have rarely paused to examine how to design for outcomes that go beyond these three goals. My colleagues and I wrote an analysis of this here:

Wilson, B., Parrish, P., & Veletsianos, G. (2008). Raising the bar for instructional outcomes: Towards transformative learning experiences. Educational Technology, 48(3), 39-44.

and I wrote specific suggestions for designing for transformative learning here:
Veletsianos, G. (2011). Designing Opportunities for Transformation with Emerging Technologies. Educational Technology, 51(2), 41-46.

I hope this helps!

George

[Marie Arndt]

Hello Mark,

Very important issues you bring up here. Ultimately somebody's got to pay what is offered for 'free'. Maybe the ones who can afford tuition fees, perhaps?
Wikipedia can never give you an education! I teach students in Oman who can't separate information from opinions, that's the Wikipedia generation for you, also in the west I think.

Marie

[Apostolos Koutropoulos]

Thanks for the references George :-) They are definitely going on my "to read" list :-)

From where I stand, instructional design (or at least the ADDIE/Dick&Carey/other model... processes) are just helpful sign posts on the road to course design. There are people who view them as prescriptive, and as THE only way to accomplish the task (i.e. hit every sign post and mark it off your list), but this, in my opinion takes the passion out of learning design. It is certainly a common misconception amongst new instructional design students, but hopefully by the end of their studies they come more aware that design isn't just about a breakdown of what needs to be done.

I think that there is also a potential disconnect.  Instructional designers aren't always instructors themselves, and aren't the SMEs (subject matter experts) themselves in the area where they are designing, so there is a very real comfort zone in being disconnected and "scientific" about the breakdown of instruction. As SMEs, we can always fall into the "deliver content trap" that is also very warm and welcoming because we know this stuff and it's easy to just talk about it to our learners.

I think, when working with SMEs, we instructional designers need to come out of our own comfort zone in order to encourage and facilitate transformative learning. I think that even if we aren't the SMEs we should encourage them to come out of their comfort zone of merely delivering content, but we can only do that if we (instructional designers) are able to feel comfortable with not feeling comfortable and exploring new avenues. 

2013/1/13 George Veletsianos <velet...@gmail.com>

--
 
 

--
Club Admiralty
Copyright 1996-2012
http://www.club-admiralty.com

[Mark Nichols]

Hi Yishay,

There's quite a good literature on transformative learning, and the model is actually quite simple. It starts with a disorienting dilemma, involves reflection, and authentic dialogue. Good suggestion about how a project might demonstrate that - would be a good focus!

Cheers,

Mark.