Brewer noted that humanity is going through unprecedented global change. And while some processes adapt to change very quickly (our use of smartphones for instance), other things move more slowly. He noted historical sloths such as academic disciplines at universities and libraries.
His point about libraries reminded me of Dave Weinberger’s earlier book, Everything is Miscellaneous. Weinberger noted that in a digital age, there is no one way to classify information. Rather than trying to put books in one place (like the Dewey Decimal System does), he suggested that information can live in multiple places. This premise of information and knowledge living in multiple nodes and the concept of networked knowledge was expanded in his book Too Big To Know, which is the textbook for my ILD-831 class. Brewer noted that “…libraries are “going digital” and building up a network ecology framework for organizing the knowledge of societies.”
Brewer suggested that science is currently in crisis alongside the political and economic systems of the world. He points out:
“So we must envision a look and feel for science in the future that is networked, agile and ever-evolving, relevant to the pressing issues of the day, and deeply, DEEPLY ecologically human.”
Brewer suggested that part of the problem lies in our adoption of systems thinking…the “illusion of separation between machines and living things.” He pointed to the need to adopt instead ecological networks.
“…The look and feel of 21st Century science will be human through and through. There will be holism and integration; emotion and reason recombined in resonance with findings from the cognitive and behavioral sciences. And it will be ecological; embedded in human networks which are themselves embedded within physical and social geographies.”
Weinberger in Too Big To Know captured some of that library thinking when he concluded:
“…We thought that knowledge was scarce, when in fact it was just that our shelves were small. Our new knowledge is not even a set of works. It is an infrastructure of connection…”
Coming back to our 30-Day Challenge, Enoch had us questioning our teaching in ways that surfaced holism and integration…that surfaced integration of human and technology. I have tried to bring aspects of that thinking into my current courses – Creighton University’s ILD-831 – Technology and Leadership – and Northeastern University’s EDU-6323 – Technology as a Medium for Learning. In both classes, I struggle to move past the sloths of old…of hierarchical thinking in leadership…of classrooms based on scarcity of knowledge. Yet, I am encouraged and even buoyed by ideas surfacing from my students in our blog aggregation for ILD-831 and our Twitter hashtag discussions in #edu6323. The first stirrings of ecological networks appear to be developing!
I would be interested in your thoughts. How do we move the sloths of academia and leadership in our digital age?
In the New Testament Bible, John 18:38, Pilate responds to Jesus’s statement that he should bear witness to the truth with this question, “What is truth?” Two thousand years later, we seem to still be grappling with this question.
This past year, 2016, was a year in which “truth” became very nuanced. Oxford Dictionaries selected “post-truth” as the 2016 international word of the year. It defined post-truth as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” We saw this play out in the United States presidential election. Fact-checkers described numerous times when candidate Trump stretched the truth, and yet this seemed to not matter to his followers. According to a Washington Post-ABC News post last November, Trump was seen as more honest than Clinton by an eight-point margin.
This is the backdrop to next week’s EDU 6323 lesson on web-based search. Google Search is the most used search engine on the web, handling more than 3 billion searches every day. Last year’s statistics ranked it with nearly two-third’s market share globally. The main purpose of Google Search is to hunt for text in publicly accessible documents offered by web servers. It was originally developed by Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1997. I remember using Alta Vista before that…but Google rapidly became the search leader. Google Search provides several features beyond searching for words. These include synonyms, weather forecasts, time zones, stock quotes, maps, earthquake data, movie showtimes, airports, home listings, and sports scores. There are special features for numbers, dates, and some specific forms, including ranges, prices, temperatures, money and measurement unit conversions, calculations, package tracking, patents, area codes, and language translation. In June 2011 Google introduced “Google Voice Search” to search for spoken, rather than typed, words – an alternate to Apple’s Siri.
My lesson includes an exploration of advanced search on Google, as well as an exploration of web site ownership through WhoIs and the Wayback Machine. I am asking my students to pick a 2016 political action committee from this website … and then first search for this PAC using Google to provide the baseline information for analysis. They will then compare their Google returns to those generated by Bing,DuckDuckGo and the Chinese search engine Baidu, Do they get the same results? What is different? Which do they prefer? Then I will have them analyze the website for their SuperPac to see if they can find who registered and authored that website. Using the Wayback Machine, they will see if they can determine how long the has website been around.
My hope is that this exploration will generate some discussion around “truth”. Dan Rockwell noted this past week that when he asked CEO’s at a dinner what kept them up at night, several shared ideas around truth (among others):
Biased media creating mis-perceptions.
Seeking input from others.
Being viewed as trustworthy.
Getting it right when people ask for advice.
The Chronicle of Higher Education this past week published a special report called “The Post-Truth Issue.” Two articles stood out to me. Safiya Noble, in “Google and the Misinformed Public,” noted that “…Google and Facebook have no transparent curation process by which the public can judge the credibility or legitimacy of the information they propagate.” She goes on to say:
“Online search can oversimplify complex phenomena. The results, ranked by algorithms treated as trade secrets by Google, are divorced from context and lack guidance on their veracity or reliability. Search results feign impartiality and objectivity, even as they fail to provide essential information and knowledge we need: knowledge traditionally acquired through teachers, professors, books, history, and experience.”
“Truth, in other words, is a thing — a goal, a bedrock, a provable hypothesis, a conclusion from evidence, an insight to which, per Keats, the perception of beauty can bring us. Post-truth is a strategy. Its relationship to truth is strategic. Its goal is the exploitation of emotion. And while it cannot kill truth, it does in a way look past it, as a hubristic traveler might try to look past that North Star, and find beyond it utter darkness, nothingness, chaos.”
Determining validity on the web should be a part of digital literacy. At lunch this past month with Enoch Hale, Director of VCU’s new Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, he made an interesting comment that his job really was more about “thinking” – thinking critically – than teaching or learning. As we approach this next week, I want my EDU6323 students to think critically about what they find on the web, and about truth.
I would like to think that this course explores “smart” uses of digital technology for learning…but “smart” has nuanced meaning now. We are seeing more and more application of AI in our everyday life. Just examine the Gartner Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies.
So I read with interest a short article this week in MIT’s Technology Review by Hossein Derakhshan. In “A Smarter Web”, Derakhshab suggests that we need more text and links, and fewer images, videos and memes. He noted how the early days of the web and it’s text-based blogs served to nurture varying opinions, while lately, social media apps like Facebook, Twitter and SnapChat have served to amplify existing beliefs, polarizing and fragmenting society. He suggests that the lack of varying opinions had more to do with the outcome of the recent USA Presidential elections than false news. Derakhshan suggests that a smarter web would be one that stepped backwards in time.
As I mentioned in my previous post, we are moving as a nation into a future where the old rules seem to have shriveled. Robert Reich noted earlier this week that Trump’s tweets are becoming a new form of governing by edict..or “Tweedict” as he termed them. In my EDU 6323 course, we will be using Twitter as a form of class communication using the hashtag #EDU6323…but hopefully in a more collaborative way than the Tweedict suggests!
In the third week of the course, we will explore validity on the web. I am adding danah boyd’s recent Medium article – “Did Media Literacy Backfire” – to the reading for that week. danah noted that media literacy asks people to question information and be wary of what they are receiving…but, in line with Derekhshan’s article, this has led to where we are questioning so much that we talk right by each other. danah ends her article noting:
“The path forward is hazy. We need to enable people to hear different perspectives and make sense of a very complicated — and in many ways, overwhelming — information landscape. We cannot fall back on standard educational approaches because the societal context has shifted. We also cannot simply assume that information intermediaries can fix the problem for us, whether they be traditional news media or social media. We need to get creative and build the social infrastructure necessary for people to meaningfully and substantively engage across existing structural lines. This won’t be easy or quick, but if we want to address issues like propaganda, hate speech, fake news, and biased content, we need to focus on the underlying issues at play. No simple band-aid will work.”
So I know that my course will engage students and introduce them to new technologies. But my hope is that my course will also begin to shift some paradigms and shake up some cultural norms. Otherwise, their future students might not hear these different perspectives that they need to hear! And that would not be smart!
My students in EDU6323 had a blast last week. The focus was on screencasting, and for many, it was the first time they had created and shared a screencast. Based on comments, I suspect it now will not be the last time. Several have already begun incorporating short screencasts into their classrooms or work settings.
To set the stage for this week, I shared Kevin Kelly‘s 2011 talk at NExTWORK:
Kelly, senior editor at Wired magazine, noted that the web has evolved in unexpected ways…and one of them is “screening.” Kelly added five other verbs to demonstrate how the web is evolving:
Accessing (as opposed to Owning)
In the five years since Kelly prognosticated the future of the web, much of his insight has proven true. Screencasts fits several of these trends. Screen recording software started being used as early as the mid 1990’s, but the term screencasting was popularized around the same time as podcasting and became a common term for the production of digital recordings of computer screen output accompanied by audio narration. John Udell is largely credited with the development of the screencast as a medium for instruction. His “Heavy metal Umlaut” screencast demonstrating how Wikipedia articles evolve has become a cult classic among screencasters.
This concept of screening is illustrated in Corning’s look to the future in Day Made of Glass Part 1 and Part 2. Kecie added to this with this tweet:
By the way, I refound this tweet by using twXplorer from Knight Lab. Searching for “edu6323”, it collated all the links shared this past week by my class in one place. Nice!
Some of the richest discussions concerned the pedagogy behind screencasts. Students shared a video by Salman Khan discussing how screencasts can be an effective way to share ideas, deliver content, and obtain student feedback. Another noted:
“…For more than a century people have been taking pictures, making movies, and distributing their creative efforts to viewers. Today’s camera technology enables students to do the same in the classroom, and in so doing, learn not only academic subject matter but also digital camera technology, which is educationally valuable. Here is a great article about Film can have a leading role in education.”
There was some excellent transfer from Laurie Poklop’s course on How People Learn. Mayer’s Multimedia Principles came up from more than one student.
“…I think you are absolutely on to something by connecting the principles of embodiment and personalization in educational multimedia espoused by Mayer (2014) to the value of human connection in the learning process. While the use of a conversational tone may simply reduce extraneous cognitive load that may occur from attempting to “decode” academic language, I also think that we are hard-wired to respond to human faces and voices, helping us focus our attention in such situations, as our brains are apt to see patterns in terms of human faces in otherwise random patterns (Svoboda, 2007). Additionally, Mayer (2014) interestingly points out that having a static image of a speaker during a multimedia presentation actually does not help learning (p. 9). It is necessary to not only be aware of a human origin for narration, but also it is important to be able to see them behaving in a familiar, naturalistic manner…”
The self-pacing and control aspect of screencasts came up repeatedly. One noted: “…I actually stumbled upon a cool study here when looking for a site to share on Diigo that talks about the pros and cons of screencasting as a self-pacing tool…”
Another conversation revolved around the best length for a screencast. One student shared an article that suggested a two-minute video with one concept is better than a four minute video with two concepts. Others suggested around 6 minutes. TechSmith, maker of SnagIt and Camtasia, asked on Twitter and got a range of responses. Interestingly, the student created screencasts went from under 2 minutes to nearly 20, on the subject of “Favorite Vacation Spot.”
So a good exploration of screencasting. Next week, EDU6323 explores the curation of media, using a variety of tools.
Ever developed one of those killer assignments that you know would be dynamite … and then you review the graduate student submissions and wonder – How could they have missed that!?!?
Yep! It happened to me this week. It happened ironically during a synthesis assignment on attention, memory and thinking, and it pointed out to me (again) how critical being explicit is in online learning (or any learning).
Let me provide some context.
For the past four weeks, my EDU 6323 class on Technology as a Medium for Learning has been reading the chapters on attention, memory and thinking in Michelle Miller’s Minds Online: Teaching Effectively With Technology. I had previously blogged about her chapters last year – see my posts on Attention, Memory, and Thinking. These chapters provided background as we explored digital tools for tagging, aggregating, social networking, and collaborating.
During those same four weeks, the students began using a group page in Diigo, purposefully curating resources around the topics of attention, memory and thinking. They collectively shared over ninety articles, both from scholarly sources as well as mainstream media. See below for some examples.
The assignment this week:
Over the past weeks, we have explored a number of Web 2.0 technologies (and we have a few to go).
We have also been reading Miller’s book Minds Online. Chapters 4-6 focus on key cognitive attributes of attention, memory and thinking. Also, we have been collectively gathering web resources on these topics in our Diigo Group page.
During this week, you will submit a 2-5 page double-spaced paper, synthesizing the lessons you take from these chapters and resources, and discussing specific ways some of the technologies we have discussed could be used to improve your teaching and student learning. You will bring highlights of your thinking into this week’s discussion to share with your classmates. The focus this week is on “collaboration” – so let’s learn from each other!
I thought it self-evident that the “collectively gathered web resources” in Diigo would inform their papers. But that was not explicitedly stated in the assignment nor the rubric.
One student did, weaving in to his analysis three different articles that other classmates had saved in Diigo. Four others used one or two of their own resources that they had added to the Diigo group page, but none from their classmates. Half of the class had Miller’s book as their only resource, with no mention of the curated resources.
I place the “blame” (if that is the right word) squarely on my shoulders. I did not make my expectations explicit and I did not provide enough scaffolding. For the past three weeks, I have reminded students to pay attention to Miller’s chapters, as they would be using them as a lens for their upcoming paper. In doing so, I focused their attention strictly on the book…and failed to highlight the importance of the other sources they were dutifully collecting.
In general, the papers were fine. They summarized Miller’s key points and then discussed possible applications to their own teaching situations. I just assumed that they would connect the dots between (1) the activity of gathering resources on attention, memory, and thinking and (2) the paper they were writing on applying the lessons to their own teaching situation. That connection was crystal clear to me … but alluded 93% of my class.
This is my first time teaching EDU 6323. Next time, I will spend more time connecting the dots – and making explicit my expectations.
And just to share some of the good work the class did curating resources, here is a sampling:
My wife and I have been on the road this week down in the Richmond VA area. We found a house in Chesterfield, and will be retiring there this spring.
Driving back to Boston yesterday, I had smooth jazz playing on Pandora in the car, and one of the songs that played was “Old.Edu (Old School)” by Euge Groove. A clever title, but it also fit my thinking about this week in EDU 6323.
The topic this week was Re-Wiring the Web using RSS. The web experience for users has morphed in the last decade. Initially, the web was simply a destination for users, a place one “surfed” content others created. At that time, there was no effective way to determine when content on a site had been modified or updated.
Really Simple Syndication (RSS) fundamentally changed this. RSS feeds enabled news headlines, blog posts, audio and video files to be automatically updated and easily accessed through RSS readers or “aggregators” like Feedly, Netvibes,Protopage, and iTunes. One could now control the web! Rather than having to go out to favorite websites to see if there were updates, content was now served up or “pushed” to individual users through subscriptions that they customized. When one could now gather dynamically updated web content, the notion of what it meant to access information radically changed. During this week, my students explored setting up and customizing RSS aggregation tools, considering how they might leverage RSS technology to support personal and student learning.
One of the things I found interesting this week in my students’ reflections was that 90% said that they had never heard of RSS. Yet, many admitted that they had noticed the orange RSS icon on webpages, but never felt compelled to check out what it was. I found this most interesting. We live in a rich media environment which is social, open, and participatory … but that presupposes that one will engage. I have not bought in to the concept of “digital natives versus digital immigrants”, but Prensky’s idea of “digital wisdom” seems more on the mark now. As the 2014 Huffington Post article by Jeff DeGraff noted:
“Don’t let the word “digital” fool you in all this talk about how difficult it is for digital natives and digital immigrants to communicate. The truth is that this generational gap between the so-called digital natives (the generation of people born during or after the rise of digital technologies) and the digital immigrants (people born before the advent of digital technology) doesn’t actually have to do with technology. The real issue is that the two worldviews that they represent are so different.”
So what I may be seeing in my students’ reflections is a different worldview from mine – one that may be more “old school.”
Maryellen Weimer noted in her post this week, “Why Are We So Slow to Change the Way We Teach?“, that many aspects of teaching are slow to change. She suggested that this is due in part to change being harder than we think, that teachers tend to underestimate the complexity of changing teaching, and that many make change harder by going it alone. My students seem to mirror this. Several noted that they were glad the class was forcing them to examine something they would not do on their own. It was interesting that several were immediately implementing aspects of RSS into their classes, where as several others thought it was a good idea and would try it out “sometime.” I hope that they do! Those experimenting with Feedly and Protopage seemed excited!
One student raised an interesting question. He noted:
“…Individuals are only likely to pull in feeds of immediate relevance or concern, potentially blocking out important sources and perspectives in favor of just using what is fed to their aggregator. Additionally, pulling in too much information from news sites or other locations that frequently post new content may lead to information overload, creating the very clutter RSS is intended to avoid.”
“…My point here is that if we are getting a lot of information from and engaging in dialogues with other bloggers (as many of us are), it’s easy for us to forget who is NOT part of the conversations. We end up operating in siloes without even knowing it…”
Wrapped around our discussions this week was Michelle Miller’s fourth chapter from Minds Online about attention. Miller noted that it is easy to derail attention. Yet, attention can easily be shifted. As Miller noted:
“…The inattentional blindness effect illustrates a broader truth about human perception and attention, that looking and seeing are two different things – and that we are remarkably prone to missing stimuli when our attention is directed elsewhere.”
While capacity cannot be expanded, it can be altered by practice. Actions that become automatic free up the brain to process other information. Attention is highly intertwined with visual processing, which is another facet of online course design that matters. The book explores change blindness, in which changes to the screen are not picked up readily. Most people think they perceive more change than they really do.
Working memory is an area of significant variation among individuals. Attention directs what goes in to working memory, so again, understanding attention is important to creating a learning environment. Miller suggested several strategies regarding attention and online learning.
Ask students to respond – Chunk material into short segments and have students do something (answer a question, click on a hotspot, etc).
Take advantage of automaticity – Use auto-grading features of LMS’s to provide practice opportunities and feedback, with incentives for completion.
Assess Cognitive Load – Positively impact cognitive load through design features. Poor instructions or requiring new features without practice can negatively increase cognitive load.
Discourage Divided Attention – The web is full of distractions, but simply informing students that they should pay attention actually increases attention.
A hotspot for my students this week regarding attention suggested that teachers should educate students about multitasking, make materials as seamless as possible, minimize extraneous attention drains, and keep them engaged through compelling activities.
My students and I grappled with how to actually apply this to the classroom. It has become apparent to some that their own inattentional blindness affects how they are teaching their students, who in turn move forward lacking digital skills to effectively use the web. Breaking the cycle of “Old School” is hard!
A third transformation is now taking place in a networked world, where the emphasis has shifted from first pulling, then pushing, to now curating and sharing information. We will explore curation in four weeks, but next week, the focus will be on using Facebook and other social media as learning spaces.
And here is the song that got me thinking in the first place:
Of course, not everything O-L-D Dot E-D-U is bad…but we should be careful not to be too old school!
In EDU6323 this week, my students explored social bookmarking. As one student noted in her weekly reflection – “Holy Moly – How Did I Not Know About This?” Her observation matched about 90% of my class…which is interesting given that social bookmarking has been around for nearly a decade. In my mind, this in some ways simply demonstrates that our past educational system was built on the individual, which resulted in people who do not naturally share or collaborate in digital ways. The changing landscape of the digital world in the past decade has resulted in processes that are open, social and participatory…but that does not mean that those educated in earlier days automatically adopt these practices. Within our class discussion forum, we had some interesting discussion around digital literacy and skill building. Many suggested that they were rethinking fundamentals – that skills such as social bookmarking were critical skills that should be integrated in K-12 education rather than waiting until higher education. Several stated that they were immediately discussing this practice with their students. Others likewise were sharing the practice with their co-workers.
To help demonstrate the power of social bookmarking, we used Diigo to collaboratively collect articles associated with three myths discussed by Michelle Miller in her third chapter of Minds Online. Michelle debunked three common myths involving digital technology – that use of technology is rewiring our brains, that kids are digital natives, and that the use of social media is destroying relationships. Student reflections noted that many of these myths resonated with them, and that they were frankly surprised to find that there was little research substantiating these beliefs. They collected a nice variety of articles that supported Miller’s view, and in the process illustrated how collectively we can quickly amass an excellent resource.
In thinking deeper about digital literacy, they reflected on how they and their colleagues tended to reject change. In working with faculty over the past decade, I and others have seen this repeatedly. However, after initially rejecting change, we have also seen faculty come back, retry something, and ultimately embrace it – whether we are talking about technology or new teaching practices.
In reflecting and discussing the social side of social bookmarking, several students saw potential opportunities for collaboration, but they also worried about collaborative approaches in a world still focused on individuals. If a group collaboratively built something, how does one grade individual effort? Others worried that students might violate copyright if they were allowed to freely share content.
Regarding grades, I spent part of the 1980s involved with the quality movement, known then as Total Quality Management. One of the guiding lights of TQM was Edwards Deming, who passed away in 1993. Deming was chiefly responsible for the rebirth of Japan following World War II, in which the quality of products (Sony, Toyota, etc) far exceeded USA products – at least until American companies started listening to Deming.
One of Deming’s beliefs was that you could pick the top 5% and bottom 5% of effort in any project, but that it was meaningless to spend time trying to quantify the middle 90%. As such, he felt that in education, individual grades tended to be meaningless.
That was 30 years ago! With the new affordances of digital technology – and the opportunities associated with collaborative learning, perhaps a new grading scheme is needed! Would teachers and faculty be ready for such a radical notion?
As an exercise for the week, my students were tasked with picking a 2016 Presidential candidate … and then first searching using Google to determine the “Super Pac” that is backing that candidate … and then trying the same search using Bing and DuckDuckGo to see if they got the same results. One of my Asian-American students added Baidu, which was rather interesting! They then were to explore more deeply the website for the SuperPac they had chosen to see if they could find who registered and authored that website. Using the Wayback Machine, they explored how long has the website had been around.
This was the first time I have tried this particular activity in one of my online classes, and I was impressed with the analysis of my students. First, they learned a lot about SuperPacs, One of the go to websites was OpenSecrets.Org – which they in turn analyzed for validity. Several were surprised to find SuperPacs supporting Bernie Sanders (though this apparently was not reciprocated). Several not only found the founder of certain SuperPacs, but then dug deeper into data about this person and how that might influence how the SuperPac was being used.
I found the reflections around personal searches most interesting. As one student noted, “…everyday web searching is superficial compared to the possibilities.”
An interesting quote from one student:
“At this point I took a pause to think about the article “Is Google making us Stupid?” because in just under half an hour I had learned something very significant about political campaigns in this country, I had read (not skimmed) several articles, and I certainly felt wiser and more informed. When I first read the article, before doing this search exercise, I was in agreement with the author– afraid of my thought processes becoming like an algorithm. But last night, when I went to go read a new book that I have, I noticed something interesting. In order to read a book, I need to take my body off of high alert. It may seem like we are passively searching the Internet, sitting on our butts on the sofa, but I noticed that my breathing was different, my calmness level was different, and even the way I felt about reading was different when I was holding a physical book in my hand versus being online.”
Most noted they had used Google without much thought, and appreciated the new awareness of both alternatives as well as search shortcuts within Google. Google, Bing, and DuckDuckGo tended to return similar sites, but the look and feel was different. All seemed to return news stories ahead of the SuperPacs themselves, which helped reinforce the concept of PageRank. Interestingly, Baidu returned similar sites, but the taglines in some cases were several years older. Most of my students had not heard of the Wayback Machine or WhoIs before and liked the ability to better understand the history of a website. Several noted that they could now as parents help their children more critically search! They seemed to agree that teaching search skills is a digital literacy that needs to start in K-12 and be reinforced in higher education.
Most disagreed with Carr’s viewpoint on Google making us stupid, though his point about skimming over deep reading seemed to resonate. Most noted that Google is a tool that can make us more efficient…or lead to superficial search. As one student noted, a hammer can build or tear down. It is not the tool but the use that counts. One student suggested that mainstream media and its soundbite mentality had more to do with skimming than any website.
Miller brought up the use of technology to mitigate against cheating in online classes in her second chapter, and that led several of my students to discuss cheating in a digital age. Most seemed to think that focusing on cheating only in online courses missed the broader point. Several also suggested that deeper engagement by students could lead to less problems with academic integrity.
So, I was very pleased with how this week’s thought exercise worked. Next week, my students will begin using Diigo and explore the concept of tagging.
So, a mixture of corporate blogs, edited blogs, and individual educator blogs.
One of the questions I asked my students was whether students “should” blog? The answers were generally positive, but with interesting additional notes. Some felt that we should start students journaling in elementary school, but within safe zones … with mixed feelings about the appropriate age for students to blog on the open web. Others felt that grading blogs diminished their learning potential – it led to extrinsic motivation rather than intrinsic. Most felt that blogging needed to be purposeful and aligned with learning objectives. Most saw a clear alignment between student blogging and Miller’s call for course redesign through technology.
As to whether teachers and faculty should blog … most were skeptically positive. In fact, one student decided this was the week for her to stick her toe in the blogosphere. Unfortunately, within a day of her establishing her blog through GoDaddy, it was hacked and hijacked. An unfortunate learning opportunity for us all … and she does plan to try again with a more secure setup.
This exploration of blogs leads next week to exploration of web searches and website validity. It should be interesting!
It has been awhile since I blogged…but as I move into retirement from faculty development and spend more time teaching adjunct, my blog offers a place to reflect on my online teaching.
I am currently teaching a graduate course for Northeastern University – Technology as a Medium for Learning (EDU6323). I was asked to completely redesign this course to add more learning science to the course flow. As the course objectives aligned with a course Jeff Nugent developed several years ago, I took the basic flow from Jeff’s course, but added Michelle Miller’s book as the course textbook, so that we would examine the various digital technologies through the cognitive lens of Attention, Memory, Thinking and Multimedia.
The students are tweeting to hashtag #EDU6323 weekly, as well as analyzing the readings and discussing their insights in our Blackboard discussion board. My students span the country.
Some are in K-12 as teachers or coaches, some are in community colleges, and some are in higher education administration or educational technology. Yet it was interesting how these readings and video in some ways overwhelmed my students. While living in it, they had not reflected before on the pace and magnitude of change occurring in learning environments. Some questioned who was ahead in dealing with this change – higher education or K-12? There was some discussion on the potential gap that can exist between haves and have-nots, but also a recognition that in some ways, developing countries now have access to learning – leading to the question as to whether it is the middle that is being squeezed.
What is gratifying is that my students appear focused on student learning, not tools and technology. There was discussion as to whether more or less technology in the classroom was the answer, but they kept coming back to the affordances technology “could” give for learning. One student summarized:
“E-learning empowers the individual by putting information in the hands of everyone, not just the elite. It affords everyone, even those in the remotest of regions and in the most un-institutional places, the invaluable advantage of learning, of being both the holder and creator of knowledge.”
Given that I have several students in health care education, there was some push-back on Mike’s article. These students teach in programs that lead to students taking national certification exams, so “teaching to the test” is a bit of the norm. We had some good discussion in both Twitter and Blackboard around assessment of learning. As one student noted:
“With all of the personalization and every aspect being chosen for the learner (ie review questions, etc), how does this bolster dedication, motivation, perseverance, and most of all organizational skills?”
Some questioned whether the concept of “learning management systems” is an outdated concept. We will dig deeper into this in a few weeks. There was comfort in the structure that LMS‘s provide, but recognition that they also limited both teaching and learning. Some noted that this comfort has more to do with teachers than students, and that fear of change may keep teachers from experimenting.
It was nice to see the concept of “free” surface in the first week. There are many free apps and softwares available for teaching and learning – but there are “costs” associated with the selection of these free apps, particularly when it comes to time for teachers to tinker and play.
Please join us at the Twitter hashtag #EDU6323 in the coming ten weeks as we explore digital technologies for learning. Next week, my students will be exploring educational blogs and trying to answer the two questions – Should students blog? and Should teachers blog?