Introduction to learning design

[py...@bristol.ac.uk]

I'm very late getting to this - still having some (but fewer) issues with the technology and the degree to which my institution's IT policies help and hinder my use of the tools (especially Google tools) that I need to use post comments etc.

I've decided to watch the video and post my thoughts before reading the comments of others.  I wonder if this is what other folks do when there are lots of existing posts....?

[I should note that I did look over the prezi file yesterday before the recording was available]  

Confession time!  I am here as sceptic.  My background is science and nothing new is every welcomed as the truth.  New things are held at arms length and beaten with furious intent.  Only if the new idea can't be killed is it ever regarded warmly and then often folks will say, 'well of course, its obvious'. 

I know that one can replay a screen cast and so being fast is not seen as a problem but I dislike slides with lots of text and there not being time to read before the next slide muscles in.  This happened a lot.  I also like to have a little space to reflect on the validity of a claim before being urged to look or listen to the next big claim.  Again, I felt there was too much of a rush.  Perhaps this is because the 'introduction' was assumed to say nothing new and so the pace was brisk because the assumption was that most folks were familiar with the content.  If that is true then I'm in the wrong place!

Here's my main concern.  

I don't believe that education can be reduced to a design.  Making a learning experience effective, for me, is like looking in the fridge, finding ingredients and making something appealing by following some principles - the essential qualities of a chef.  It is not at all the same as following a recipe using a list of ingredients that you've previously assembled - this is a cook.  It is in essence the difference between being able to paint and painting by numbers.

I suspect there is fear at some level of government that our teachers are not chefs and so must have recipes provided for them.  

Here's a lovely example in a TED talk by Barry Schwartz (listen from about 9mins 20 seconds).  He talks about how education is driven by a script that aims to avoid disasters but ensure mediocrity.  

So far I've seen and heard nothing in the OLDS MOOC that rings true for me.

Sorry folks.

Phil

[py...@bristol.ac.uk]

Sorry that there is not photo - just a name and cartoon sillouette - blame my institution for not implementing 'profiles'.

Phil

[Heather Peters]

Hi Phil...

I couldn't decide whether to say 'ditto' or 'hear hear' - so I'm saying both.

Pretty much complete accord with your concern about design being used as what seems to be considered a synonym for education in some circles. All the danger flags like up at that one!!!!

Although, I'm not certain if view myself as a 'sceptic' per se, I try to be as objective as I possibility can and come to a conclusion based on evidence. Being flexible to change a conclusion should more evidence provide proof to the contrary. I think we are saying essentially the same thing only in different words.

Cheers,

Heather

[Roger Handyside]

I think you are overstating the issue. I am not sure I agree with the cooking analogy, I think I would rather tweak recipes that grab at random! Though I go along with using design principles, that is what I am trying to develop using educational design research. It is not all or nothing. I would like to be taught by someone who has thought about the context and learning outcomes, planned a sequence of activities and assessments to deliver, albeit in a flexible way that could respond to teacher/student interactions. That is what I consider learning design. Using the example in the TED talk of a 'script' is not very helpful in this situation, although I have seen some examples in the UK, e.g. The literacy hour!!

[George Hobson]

Roger - agree. The difficulty is using the word "design" as a sort of metaphor for the process of "planning a learning experience" (sorry, do not know what else to call it). Using the word "design" produces images of tight structure, one path and indeed objects rather than something dealing with humans. But I am happy to use it in a wider sense that can encompass change, reaction to feedback, and quite open approaches to learning. 

[py...@bristol.ac.uk]

Hi Roger

Sorry if the reference to the transcript of a talk didn't feel helpful.  I tend to prefer listening to the author rather than reading their words as the delivery often puts some colour into the text.  This is particularly true for Barry Schwartz.  The part of the transcript is below:

"Second, no doubt more familiar to you, is the nature of modern American education: scripted, lock-step curricula. Here's an example from Chicago kindergarten.Reading and enjoying literature and words that begin with 'B.' "The Bath:" Assemble students on a rug and give students a warning about the dangers of hot water. Say 75 items in this script to teach a 25-page picture book. All over Chicago in every kindergarten class in the city, every teacher is saying the same words in the same way on the same day. We know why these scripts are there. We don't trust the judgment of teachers enough to let them loose on their own. Scripts like these are insurance policies against disaster. And they prevent disaster. But what they assure in its place is mediocrity. (Applause)

Don't get me wrong. We need rules! Jazz musicians need some notes -- most of them need some notes on the page. We need more rules for the bankers, God knows. But too many rules prevent accomplished jazz musicians from improvising. And as a result, they lose their gifts, or worse, they stop playing altogether."  From Barry Schwartz's TED Talk - Our Loss of Wisdom

I've no doubt that the originators of innovative approaches that are made available for wider use as a script are able to use the principle without appearing to follow a script but that is not always so.  There are lots of examples that demonstrate the truth of the observation that the more one prescribes a process [setting out what should happen in logical steps, offering examples of what to do or say] the more likely it is that folks who follow the instructions have a poor grasp of what they are doing and why.  A process that one can boil down to three or four principles will generally work better as a framework for practitioners than will a highly specified 50 point plan.  This has been demonstrated many times - folks can keep the three principles in mind and adapt their day to day practice in accordance with them. The 50 point plan never makes it into one's mind and so is all but useless as a tool.  The 50 point plan can, however, be used as a checklist for an observer and so guess what they tend to be used for - yeap, the framework for evaluations of the quality of x or y or z.  Essentially attempts to measure something valuable in exactly to wrong way.

My concern about the use of the word 'design' is that it is already being used as a bogus seal of approval in the same what that 'pedagogy' often is.  It is the idea that something that is label as a 'design' is somehow better than something that lacks the label.  Learning design is not bound to lead to something good or effective and yet the things that I see and hear suggest that there is a tacit assumption that learning design is necessarily a good thing.

Best wishes,
Phil