The Machine - Us

The Machine is Using/Us

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE&feature=player_embedded

Just watched this video.

How this relates to my learning - I'm afraid I'm still a bit of a static learner. I don't find the idea of being able to edit Wikipeda exciting. I don't even really like thinking about the fact that this blog may be being read by many people. At least I know that this blog is for my ideas, and while people might or might not like my ideas, that doesn't matter. If I have to put facts out there, or reports... that would be different.

How this would relate to my teaching - I could imagine the pressure students would be under if their Physics assignments were somehow to be published on the web, in the 2.0 environment where it could be changed. Even as a class group. Students don't like looking stupid in front of other students. They don't ask questions on forums and even if they just email me, they are always saying something like "sorry, it is probably a silly question, but..." Could they then really put something on a wiki and then have other students changing what they said because it was wrong, or answering the questions...? And my students range in grades from pass to high distinction, and while I want to change them all to HDs, making them put working on a wiki so that the other students can help, wouldn't be doing much for their self esteem.

How this relates to learning in general - with all of the information out there, we are already struggling to help students understand what is academically rigorous literature. The more blogs and sites like Wikipedia that are out there, the bigger our challenge. Great for synthesising and critical reflection, especially in areas that are 'opinion' driven, but not for 'fact' driven areas. You just have to read the newspaper to find crazy, unsupported, unsubstantiated, mis-represented statistics. Did you know that 45% of the Capricornia electorate are homophobic? Too many people just accept that and don't ask about the method, the terminology... the rigour of that data.

Edutopia and technology in curriculum design

Video

George Lucas and Robert Thurman

www.edutopia.org

They documented ideal learning environments.

Project learning

Cooperative learning

Integrated studies

Comprehensive assessment – multiple measures

Teachers – the human touch – the most valuable element

Higher ed gives more self control over what they are learning.

Learning is a fun thing to do if you are interested in the material

Students don’t always know what their passion is, and like George, can stumble on it by chance.

Using stories in film in learning.

Tell the story of how to integrate technology into schools.

Don’t put computers in a classroom and teach students how to use them once a week. Use computers as a tool, like a pencil, to learn other subjects, and cooperate.

Lots of great theory, but there are holes.

Kids want to be adults – so give them adult tasks. Don’t teach them maths, tell them to design a plane, and they will want to learn the maths and science to do so.

Using the knowledge to do something.

Website shows you how to organise the classroom around the technologies.

Edutopia

Looking through the website it seems that there is a lot of information on integrating technology, but pretty much only in person. Cameras, probes, photogates, video, heart rate monitors… How would we get students to use that sort of equipment when studying at a distance?

One thing that I did love about it was the encouragement of integrated learning. They took the data from the cheerleaders heart rates etc and graphed that in Maths and then talked about velocity and acceleration in Physics using videos. Since all we can work with is that the students have computers, it would need to be carefully considered exactly what we asked of them. Yes, we can put up the videos, but of course that won’t be as meaningful as if they were in the videos. We can get them to graph data, but that’s not the same as if they had generated the data to start with.

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!

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.