Blogging on blogging

I’m not so sure about blogging for collaboration. Examples in the material about T charts and Y charts, PMI analysis are all more for wikis than blogs. Blogs are very good for individual thinking and analysis. Yes, someone can follow someone else’s blog, but they also have their own where they are more likely to put their own thoughts. I have found that commenting on other people’s blogs is quite a rare thing. Everyone has their own space and reading someone else’s thoughts means having to go to each of those spaces, unless using Google Reader. Using a wiki or Google docs would be better for collaboration.

The other side, to enhance critical reading and writing skills blogging is a pretty good idea. It is a first step. It is a non-threatening environment to allow free writing, which I believe would encourage writing. To have blogs for assessment in university would be a slippery slope, depending on how. If it was marked on content, I think it would take away the whole point of blogs. If it is marked on a few key criteria, like includes critical reflection and must be a certain length, or reference 2 papers or similar. The material had some good ideas about blogging for school students. This can work – if used properly. Kids can be mean, so the fact that other kids can comment on a blog would need to be monitored for negative feedback or bullying. It could also make kids scared to blog the assignment as it will be open for all, or, it could raise standards if monitored and promote quality.

INTJ

Rational Matermind

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

This is the same result as I always get on this test. I have done the proper Myers Briggs test and done a whole day of activities showing how the different types work together, or don’t. It was extremely valuable. What it did highlight was that we do things according to our personality without even thinking or realising, and these can not only mean that other people don’t understand, but it can confuse and create misunderstandings. So knowing that everyone is different and how they are different, it important especially for working together. It is also important for group work. Often we, as lecturers, assign group projects without teaching students how to work as a group, or even alerting the students to the fact that people do work differently in groups and what to do when different personalities arise.

We might be aware of our preferences, but we are often not aware of those of other people and it can result in us thinking that other people are just being difficult or uncooperative. This, of course, is completely unproductive. Steps could be taken for a homework activity or similar, just to ease the tension.

Felder's learning styles

INDEX OF LEARNING STYLES (ILS)

http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILSpage.html

I am a 9 in reflective, on the Active/Reflective scale.

This actually surprised me because I do like to be active in my learning. I guess I just prefer to think about it first. I don’t like to jump in when I don’t know what I’m doing. I found that when I was living in Norway and learning the language. I didn’t talk much until I knew the words and could form a complete sentence. I do also like to read instructions and make sure I know what I need to do before, say, putting together flat pack furniture!

I know I need time in class to reflect and think about things. Go too fast and ask me a question, I can’t think fast enough. Exams are terrible because there is never enough time to think and work through things.

Active learners on the other hand would get bored with sitting in lectures, or with being given too much time to think without doing anything physical. So a mix of both would be best in lessons. Online learning, however, allows students to take their time if they are reflective, so having some activities is not so bad, so long as there are not so many that reflective learners get a bit overwhelmed by how many things, or how much there is to do.

I am a 7 in sensing, on the Sensing/Intuitive scale.

This does make sense to me as I do like working through things very methodically. Although I prefer that method, I am still open to new ways, especially if it means improvements. These, however, might have to have some factual base to back them up, rather than being completely out of the blue.

In learning, then, it would not be good to do a lot of repetitive activities, such as tutorial sheets with many of the same questions, nor would it be good to just involve a few experiments for exploring new ideas. There would need to be a combination of both. If question sheets are put into online courses, then enough could be put up to satisfy the sensing, but with emphasis that they are not compulsory, so the intuitive don’t get bored. Also in the mix, a number of ‘think outside the box’ experiments or activities.

I am a 9 in visual, on the Visual/Verbal scale

Yes, I love graphs and diagrams. I can work thinks out from reading, but it is more difficult, and I often end up drawing a diagram.

For learning, it is quite easy to include both in any course. What is difficult, however, is getting the students to understand the need to diagrams. The first step in most Physics problems is to draw a diagram. Many students don’t take it seriously or draw half a diagram. I find it hard to believe that so many students are not visual. I guess using this quiz would help!

I am a 9 in sequential, on the Sequential/Global scale

I can tell that I like to do things in a logical order. If the information doesn’t show some sort of logic and progression, I do find it hard to follow. I can understand global learners, however, and appreciate the need to a big picture.

So with any course, an overview is essential, and then a logical progression through the material is needed, with a comprehensive summary at the end.

Engagement theory and technology

Engagement Theory:

A framework for technology-based teaching and learning

Greg Kearsley & Ben Shneiderman

This article starts by basically saying that engagement can be without technology, but really technology makes it better. Hmm, let's think about that a little. In Physics, yes, technology can help, but there really is no substitute for the real thing. Measuring distance, feeling velocity and acceleration, feeling force and torque, experimenting with levers, making electric circuits with LEDs of varying brightness, wave tanks and lasers...

Then, of course, there is the problem solving as the paper goes on to talk about. Yes, technology can be very useful in problem solving and helping students work towards correct answers.

Ooh, I'm skeptical of collaboration online! Personally, I think it is good to link people geographically apart, but actually getting groups to really work together with technology is another thing. I've tried to teach Physics with tute groups with group projects... it was terrible. Most groups met together or phoned each other - phones are technology I suppose! Now, these were quite small problems, 2-4 people, 2 weeks and a 2 page report.

I tell you, that is one thing about several articles that I have read that really get my goat. Saying that using technology in internal courses is better than not using technology in internal courses. Well of course! This is not really collaboration, and yes, it is more interesting, therefore more engaging. Whether technology can be used for engaging - solely technology, that is the real question.

Now, I must object to one thing... In the bulk of the article, it refers to 'authentic focus' and in the conclusion to 'non-academic focus'. Are these supposed to be the same thing? Are academic and authentic exclusive domains? In Physics, I beg to differ. It is the 'academicness' off the situation, whether it be authentic or contrived, that makes it Physics - I believe makes it interesting!