8 step Learning Management

Well, finally we see the word andragogy. Very interesting, though. What is it about adults that mean they can’t learn the same way as children? I guess in this model, it is the prior learning, the pre-conceived ideas. It could also be the metacognition that adults are more capable of, or the less trusting nature of adults. Tell an adult that the sky is red, or that water flow up hill or that the gravitational force between two bodies is proportional to the mass of each and inversely proportional to the distance between them, they just won’t take your word as truth.

I guess I’m kind of lucky to be teaching a course where they don’t have to believe every word I say and that I can demonstrate many of the concepts they are learning about.

The rest of the model seems pretty straight forward, if not a little oversimplified. As in my last blog, it is quite a bit more interrelated than a step by step process.

Planning for Learning and Assessment

The planning process that is given at the start of this presentation does promote some sort of an order:

1. Select the learning outcomes on which to focus
2. Select strategies to promote consistency of teacher judgment
3. Make explicit what students need to know and do to demonstrate the learning outcomes
4. Choose the context/s for learning
5. Select and sequence learning activities and teaching strategies
6. Identify or design assessment opportunities
7. Identify how to gather and record evidence
8. Identify when and how judgments will be made
9. Identify when and how reporting of student progress will occur

It then circles back to the beginning. There is nothing in the middle but cross linking arrows, I guess depicting linking between any of the steps.

I’m not sure that I would do it quite in that order. From Engineering, and Engineering Education, I am familiar with design cycles. A very succinct one of those is

Ask

Imagine

Plan

Create

Improve

These are all surrounding the Goal. The goal is the most important thing, so when you are asking questions about the context, it is with the goal in mind. When you imagine, well, the imagination can run wild, but there is no point to grand imaginings without keeping the goal in mind. Through to improving so that the solution better meets the goal, not just improves in a haphazard way. No point making it faster, when you actually need to make it stronger.

It is also necessary to make the learning as authentic as possible. This also means that the goal, the context, is the most important.

So my order might actually be more like this:

1. Choose the context/s for learning
2. Make explicit what students need to know and do to demonstrate the learning outcomes
3. Select and sequence learning activities and teaching strategies
4. Identify or design assessment opportunities
5. Identify when and how judgments will be made
6. Identify how to gather and record evidence
7. Select strategies to promote consistency of teacher judgment
8. Identify when and how reporting of student progress will occur

At the centre would be the learning outcomes. Of course these learning outcomes would be context driven.

I think the diagram with curriculum intent, pedagogy and assessment is meaning that all three areas are intricately linked. The planning questions:

What do I want students to learn? (CI)

How will they learn what is intended? (P)

How will I know when they have learned? (A)

How will I use what I learn about the students’ performance? (A)

are inseparable. What and how they learn are very close and if done well, if they have done the ‘how’ then it naturally follows the knowing when they have learned it.

In Engineering terms, the goal or solution or outcome, can’t be separated from how to achieve it, and the success is just not there until it is there. No point having a goal of being able to transport goods and people across a river and only building a bridge half way or a barge that holds everything, but just before it makes it across it gets swept away by a strong current. “Oh that’s OK, the goods nearly made it. It was a fantastic idea and so that’s fine, that’s all we were looking for.”

Is this blog rigorous enough?

Kathleen Gray on WEB 2.0 and authorship and academic integrity

http://ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.03.001

This paper talks about appropriately referencing web 2.0 content. Yes, there is more and more of that content, but surely there are referencing guides out to cope with that? I know that guides do tend to focus on rigorous academic material, but it is updated often (eg APA and Harvard) and don’t seem to be struggling too much.

What possibly is missing from the referencing is a discussion about the integrity and qualifications of the author. They talk about how hard it is to say whether the material has come from a particular source, but that alone is not what the material should be judged on. If a well renowned researcher is commenting in a blog, it is not the fact that it is in a blog that is the issue, it is the fact that you can rely on the authors credibility. It is a mix of where it comes from and who is the author.

Plagiarism. Now there is an interesting statement they make: “is a symptom of an emerging mode of reading and writing” (p113). I guess this is saying that it is easier than ever for students to copy and paste chunks of text and that a whole lot more is accessible. Perhaps it is also a symptom of lectures giving the students a whole lot more work?? In the past, perhaps the students would have to read and review an article for a lecture. Now, due to so much being available, the lectures just link to a whole heap of relevant articles and set that for the students each week. It is easier to pull material together, students are expected to synthesise a large number of papers and the student’s time is just getting shorter and shorter for composing papers. Student are under pressure.

Another point in this paper is that web authoring tends to be discussive rather than objective. So be it. In any assignment, the context of the material should be taken into consideration and discussed. Academic assignments are far from reciting facts with dutiful references after them backing up the facts. Assignments should be just as discussive and evaluative. Even scientific papers need to evaluate the subjective nature of the authors and the context. This should happen whether it is a peer reviewed, level A journal article, or Stephen Hawking’s blog.

Oh Great and Powerful Leader

Academic Leadership

Askling, B. & Stensaker, B. (2002). Academic leadership: Prescriptions, practices and paradoxes. Tertiary Education and Management, 8, 113-125.

Try this link (then click on the PDF link)
http://ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/login?url=http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1023/A:1015612510179

Saying that public management ideals may be difficult and dangerous in higher education because higher education is complex and paradoxical, implies that business are simplistic and that the leadership of both are mutually exclusive. I have no experience in business, but this sounds a little degrading of businesses and CEOs.

In fact, they are saying that the whole managerial environment is so very different that influences from corporate management have had little success in the university environment. What they do say is that leadership is the key to the success either way, and that the style of leadership should, by necessity, differ in each case. Corporate leadership is a role: strong, meaningful and set. Academic leadership is a process: fluid, guiding and integrally linked to the situation.

A difference that is important to the ability of the institution to change, is that academic leaders be able to adapt to difficult and complex situations that they may never have seen before, and that the very set (not to say bad) leadership of the corporate world may not be able to cope with those situations.

Interesting they talk about dispersed leadership and lower level leaders. While that might increase the pressure on these leaders, my own experience at this university is that it can lead to ‘too many cooks in the kitchen’. To run a multi-faceted, whole of university event – orientation – the ‘leaders’ I must approach are: 2 Executive Deans, 10 Deans, 3 Pro-Vice Chancellors, 4 Directors and at least 6 Managers. So I need good leadership skills and I am only, as they say, a lower level leader myself.

It is the same that I have noticed with ‘quality’ as this article talks about. Not only do you need quality leaders, to obtain across institutional ‘quality learning and teaching’ all of those leaders must agree. So do we need even stronger academic leadership at the top? As the control that is increasingly going down the chain, is it going to be an impossible task to ‘lead’ a university into the future? Perhaps, as the paper says, that would be detrimental… but there is no way I would like to work for any organisation, academic or otherwise that doesn’t have strong leadership through change and improvement processes.

Apples and oranges

Analysis of Academic Expertise
Try this link (then click on the PDF link)
http://ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13664530000200099

This journal article is interesting in discussing issues of Academic Expertise: Backmore, P. (2000). Some problems in the analsyis of academic expertise. Teacher Development. 4(1), 45-63.

This article doesn’t really say much. It basically says that if you measure different things, you get a different result. I agree that it is difficult to analyse ‘what is in an academic’s expertise’. Do we ever really need an analysis that is apart from a reason? It says to keep the purpose in mind. Why else would you be doing the analysis? If we did it for AUQA or for restructuring, of course we’d get different accounts. That’s fine! If I say the colour of the shirt is navy blue, and you say it is dark blue, does it really matter? Yes, if you are wanting to reproduce it, so you would probably get a spectrometer and measure the wavelength. If you are just talking about the person in the dark blue shirt as opposed to the person in the light blue shirt, hmm, no. Apples for apple sauce, oranges for marmelade.

The Meta Professional - like everyone

The Meta Professional

This new role for academics has been designed by a group in the US: The Meta Professional Project.

The Meta-Profession project derives from a conceptualization of the professoriate as practicing a 'meta' profession. That is, a college professor must perform at a professional level a variety of roles that require expertise and skills in areas that often extend beyond the faculty member's specific area of scholarly expertise or "Base Profession". Thus, the skill sets required by faculty to perform in these roles are divided into two general categories: Base Profession Skills and the additional Meta-Profession Skills. These skill sets are delineated in a series of matrices which show the interaction between a specific role (e.g., teaching, scholarly/creative activities, service, or administration) and the skills required by the work involved in carrying out that role.

http://www.cedanet.com/meta/

Yes, it is often heard around the uni that academics require a whole set of skills that might not have to do with their area of expertise. There is a set that is to do with teaching, a set with IT and a set with administration, to name a few.

But what job doesn’t have that???? Nearly all jobs require administration and IT proficiency. Going through the matrix of skill sets from this site, really is not revealing. In fact, I’d even put a fair number up in their frequency of use categories (colours). Nice to see it set out so well, but nothing that wouldn’t be as complex for any other profession – especially ones where advanced education is required, for example doctors, lawyers, business managers etc.

All it is really pointing out is that academics do a lot of things across several areas. Looking at it slightly more closely, it is a little misleading in that all the blue cells are ‘almost never’ and even the yellow cells are ‘occasionally’ so there are not even as many things as it could first look like.

What I’d say, is it’s time to grow up and face reality. Most of these people have doctorates. Some ability to multi-task or be meta-professionals just goes with the role. If you don’t like it, or can’t do it, go and cut grass for a living. Oh wait… I can think of so many things that a grass cutter must be able to do – I should do up a skills matrix!

Let’s face it, students have to deal with most of these things too in their work/study/life. Someone sure should do a matrix for them. I refer to Walther, J. (2006). "Engineering education: Targeted learning outcomes or accidental competencies?". ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings.

Students or customers?

HE Teachers and Emotional Labour

Consider the work you undertake and see if this article resonates with you:

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Pdf/0600180403.pdf

Constanti, P. & Gibbs, P. (2004). Higher education teachers and emotional labour. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(4), 243-249.

The student as customer is always an interesting discussion. On one hand, the customer needs to be satisfied, on the other, the student needs to satisfy the criteria. It can always go that if the customer is too demanding of immediate satisfaction – passing courses and being pandered to – that they will be unsatisfied when they are out in the work force only to find that they are unprepared for the job. Customers do not always know what their future needs are. Take the customer that demands really low prices. After a few weeks, the product breaks. They realise that cheap and high quality do not necessarily equate in the same product. They can’t, however, see that an easy-to-pass education has a tendency to lead to failure, or at least job dissatisfaction, very soon after entering the workforce.

As for emotional labour, the term seems to be misleading in that this article describes it as a need to suppress feelings and emotions in teaching to satisfy the customer and management. I don’t see why this needs to be the case. It describes needing to always be positive and happy in a customer service environment and employees being trained to change their emotions. They present lots of literature to show that emotional labour is not productive in the end and can lead to negative consequences. I can see that putting on a positive attitude might be necessary in the extremely short interactions in some customer service industries, such as checkout operator in a supermarket, or a receptionist, but when there is extended interaction, such as with a teacher and students, why is there that compulsion? Surely if an appropriate relationship is built, with the high level of lecture – student interaction that is one of the 7 principles, then the students will realise that lecturers are human. If lecturers ARE emotionally invested in the teaching and in their students, then whether they are happy or not on a particular day does not take away from that overall sense of those lecturers caring about the well-being of their students.

An interesting point later in the article that perhaps the students don’t want to be seen as purely customers and have their lecturers showing false enthusiasm. That really does just make them seem like a commodity and not individuals. Yes, they want enthusiastic teachers, but can’t they see through the falsity if they are not genuine?

Risk Shmisk

The University as a Risky Environment
McWilliam, E. (2004). Changing the academic subject. Studies in Higher Education, 29(2), 151-163.

Try this link, password required, (then click on the PDF link)
http://ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0307507042000190769

Yes, there is always risk that an organisation, a university will fail (in some respect anyway). What was interesting was the described management of the risk when talking about ‘soft marking’ that they don’t go straight to the source and ensure that the teachers/markers are not doing soft marking, but go about it in a round-about way with policy, pedagogy and technology. Is it so bad that there is a risk that there are bad teachers or soft markers? That should be dealt with directly – shouldn’t it?

Having just been through an audit, it is interesting to see the comments. I don’t think it was trying to make the uni the same as all the other unis in Australia. I think it was good at looking at the unique needs of our clients. I think it is a good risk management (or negation) technique only because of the actions that I see leading up to and as a result of the audit. Pity there is a couple of years in between when it would be really good to still have the pressure to perform, and not just in the year lead up to the audit. So much for unwelcome, it should be embraced as a opportunity!

They can go on and on about risk, but I don’t think it is any more or less of a problem than in any other organisation. Indeed, I’m sure banks get a whole lot more auditing and risk focussing than universities.

Technorepository and technocollaboration

Academic technology and the future of HE
Privateer, P.M. (1999) Academic technology and the future of higher education: Strategic paths taken and not taken. The Journal of Higher Education 70(1), 60-79.

Try this link, password required, (then click on the PDF link)

http://ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=1510739&site=ehost-live

First thing I notice is that it is written in 1999, 12 years ago. Technology sure has changed a lot in that time! Perhaps we can see how their predictions have shaped up?

One point: that computers do not provide automated learning satisfactory to any student’s needs… I don’t think that they have fully understood where computer learning management systems can get to n 1999. We all know that the internet is not just a dumping ground for unlimited resources and a place to take online quizzes. We have seen that online systems with the right input from the lecturers can actually provide self-paces, meaningful lessons that can provide far more immediate feedback than lecturers can with any sizable class. While it is not the be all and end all because of the lack of interaction with anyone, it is far more than automated learning.

Another point: that universities have used technology to redo the same old process, without re-thinking that process. Paper based forms become online forms, but really, in the end, are all those forms needed now that there is the online technology?

The cost benefit analysis probably is true in many cases where technology was introduced. I think, however, that we have come passed that. I don’t think CQUni academics even think about cost benefit of technology. They sure probably think about time-saving benefits, but only with respect to keeping up good teaching and reinventing ways of teaching to make it more efficient at providing high level engagement to a high number of students.

Reproduction technologies versus invention technologies. Computers just made that happen in a different way. It is still valid that we have to make technology useful in a creative sense, a critical reasoning sense, not just a fill in the blanks sense. We are still fighting to make technology the vehicle for collaboration, not just an infinite date repository. Let’s face it, anyone can look up anything these days, there is absolutely no need to remember any facts. What is important to learn is interaction, process, and inventiveness.

The comments about the gap between the haves and have-nots, I’m not sure is panning out that way. In Tanzania in 2010 when I went there, there were at least just as many mobile phones per capita as here, even though clean water was scarce, food was basic, and housing as we know it just does not exist. Every corner had a stall to sign up for a phone or sim, and there were always several people at each. So I’m not sure that technology isn’t getting to poor people, it is slower, but soon they will have access to as much information as anyone.

So, we have come part of the way – still have a way to go – to make technology really work for higher education.

216?

Enhancing Teachers' Capacities for Effective Online Teaching and Learning

http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet21/segrave.html

Segrave, S. Holt, D. & Farmer, J. (2005) The power of the 6 ^three model for enhancing academic teachers’ capacities for effective online teaching and learning: Benefits, initiatives and future directions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), 118-135.

Well, for a start, they need to understand maths better because 6^three is 216 and is not the same as 6 x 3 = 18 which what they mean. If you’re going to be funky, at least by kind of correct! I’d like to see someone come up with a 216 part model, but they don’t. They do get to 84 in one part! Anyway……

What they are describing are the difficulties in getting all academics proficient with online learning environments as well as having good teaching practices. Thinking to my university undergraduate days, even without technology or anything being online, there were still lecturers with good teaching practices and bad teaching practices. One would give us the notes and then spend the time demonstrating, giving examples and problem solving both practically and theoretically; another would give us the notes then spend the lessons writing the exact same notes out in long hand on the board.

In a broad sense, the authors have incorporated this into their model. It is good to see the use of exemplars as that did occur at CQUni and I believe it was quite motivational for many academics. I still believe, however, that there are those academics out there who don’t place such emphasis or value on good teaching practices. Hopefully, they are becoming fewer. It is valuable as they say, to incorporate the design principles in the APD as well as in their end result of courses. I guess they are (as they should be) using good teaching practices to teach about online learning!

The six professional capacities seem quite logical, it not rather obvious, but it is good to see them set out like that in a clear manner. In a way, they do quite reflect the 7 principles for good practice.

They do note the Grad Cert at Deakin too, and I know it is at CQUni, but how good are the participation rates? What happens to those who have already done the program but the new LMS is implemented afterwards? Is there a reward or punishment scheme for staff who don’t comply? Of course there wouldn’t really be punishment, but courses may not be able to be offered until up to scratch…

Overall, their conclusion is absolutely accurate. Promotion of staff, university wide initiatives, good support from faculties and Deans, more than just IT training. I think CQUni did, and continues to do, really well with Moodle.