Socialisation as information objects – the totem pole

As part of my studies in Instructional Design with the University of Manitoba, I have been asked to reflect on George Siemen’s blog article entitled Socialization as information objects and comment on the views of the model discussed.  This is part 2 of my reflections.

After reading George’s articles, I can see how his learner-centred approach can produce far more effective learning outcomes for students.  The students are pursuing what they perceive as important to them.  An important aspect, particularly of adult learners is for the learning to have purpose/meaning/relevancy.  If a learner can see why what they are learning is important, they are more likely to engage.  In this type of design, the learners decide to learn what is most relevant to them, and can focus their efforts to this end.

Rachel has made the following comments on the class forum: “I think the real problem with learners deciding outcomes is the assessment issue. There is a need to know who is competent to do something and how is that going to be measured except through some kind of testing against predetermined objectives?”

While I agree with Rachel, taking a broader view I see the weakness in terms of when it is applied to current (and past) western attitudes and culture.  Formal education seeks to evaluate and rank learners quantitatively according to their achievements as one criteria for employers to use to recuit their workforce.  A totem pole if you will with the elite at the top.  Skills and attributes that employers are looking for and how learners measure up to this criteria is a critical aspect of evaluating potential employees.  As such, what employers see as important versus what learners see as important may not always align.  Or at the very least, what learners perceive as important may not align with employers.  This is where learning outcomes/objectives inform learning designs.  The behaviourist heritage – what behaviours do employers seek in their employees. Returning to Rachel’s comments, its not just about how competency is measured, but what competencies according to requirements of the established disciplines.

George made the following comment regarding learner control.

Learner control is not without frustration for the instructor. I recall feeling a bit frustrated that the concept of connectivism that I was trying to communicate – the neural, conceptual, and social/external dimensions of networked learning (expressed in this presentation)- was not resonating with participants.  As many theorists in education have stated, what’s important for learning is not what the educator has to share, but the current state of knowledge and interest of the learner. My attempt to move the conversation in one direction was not successful in this instance because participants were not interested in engaging in the concepts I presented. End result: learners took the course in directions that reflected their needs and interests. Not the instructors.

Jenny Mackness highlights the issues around accreditation and the need for a tutor to assess their work.  So what if we were to change the topic of the learning to a course around financial auditing.  The established standards around auditing dictate what is expected of a professional, and learning outcomes for formal education reflect this (or at least should ).  It would not be acceptable to the financial auditing establishment for a learner to decide that they were not interested in the procedures of xyz and therefore not engage with it.  Perhaps a contrived example, and I’m not a financial professional, but I hope this makes sense.

An extract from the quote above:  “what’s important for learning is not what the educator has to share, but the current state of knowledge and interest of the learner.”

I guess it depends on what the educator has to share, and its relevance to established expectations for the field of study.  Perhaps that is articulated through the current state of knowledge.

Socialisation as information objects – what about diverse ways of learning

As part of my studies in Instructional Design with the University of Manitoba, I have been asked to reflect on George Siemen’s blog article entitled Socialization as information objects and comment on the views of the model discussed.  This is part 1 of my reflections.

George discusses two examples of courses that have shifted from object-centred sociality to socialisation as information objects – Noncourse and Connectivism & Connective Knowledge (CCK).  For CCK, George had included the following passage titled “The joys of friction, ambiguity, and wayfinding.”

From the beginning of the course, both Stephen and I emphasized that we were not playing traditional instructor roles. We were nodes within a larger network. Ambiguity, even confusion, was necessary. The acts of grappling with many different sources of information, of trying to determine what was important, of deciding which learners to interact with, and choosing which resources to read and comment on, were all fundamental to learning. Wayfinding and sensemaking are by products of the internal friction of choosing what to value and pursue. As instructors, we provided navigation options through the deluge of information and commentary, but we consistently emphasized that our voice and perspective should be enlarged by interacting with peers and through the formation of personal network (I addressed the formation views in narratives of coherence).

Emphasis was placed on the personal agency of learners, fostering learning networks that reduced the prominence of the instructors and sought to assist learners in forming learning networks that lasted beyond the duration of the course.

I am curious as to what the navigation options were.  Perhaps George, you could elaborate on that point?  How was this facilitated?  How many options were provided?  How deep did they go?  I understand the value of “… grappling with many different sources of information, of trying to determine what was important, of deciding which learners to interact with, and choosing which resources to read and comment on, were all fundamental to learning.”  The potential weakness in your learning design that I see relates to learning styles, and the ability of certain personality types to cope with such a lack of linearity, scaffolding or sequencing.  For those who have a preference for sensing and sequential learning styles, this type of approach to learning could be very intimidating, overwhelming and cause anxiety for the learner.  Therefore I would suggest considerable effort would be required in providing the appropriate support and guidance to see them achieve well with such a heavy reliance on intuition, and global thinking.  In a way, I can speak personally as I am a strong sequential/sensing learner.   George describes the instructor support provided:

Instructor led support was provided through a daily email newsletter summarizing important forum discussions, exemplary blog posts or podcasts, and related research. Live presentations were held three times weekly … Weekly online presentations by invited guests included the following prominent educators and learning theorists…

Was there evidence of problems as I have highlighted George?  Or does the sociality aspect of the course design provide the sequencing and bigger picture that is not provided by the instructor?  In other words, do learners guide one another just as effectively as an instructor might in a more traditional course design, bearing in mind the greater needs of the sequential/sensing learner?

Of course, as a life-long learning initiative, course designs such as these would be very beneficial to the sensing/sequential learners in developing their ability to use alternate learning styles, despite them not being a preference.  I believe the most effective learners can adapt well to the styles required for the learning situation.

I’ll be doing CCK in the future as part of my program of study.  I’m looking forward to it.

Connectivism and the importance of context – an example

I have just read a post by George Siemens where he answers the question:  “What is the unique idea in Connectivism?”

My article is related to my participation in my University of Manitoba studies of Instructional Design.

One aspect that George has highlighted in response to the question is the following:

4. Context. While other theories pay partial attention to context, connectivism recognizes the fluid nature of knowledge and connections based on context. As such, it becomes increasingly vital that we focus not on pre-made or pre-defined knowledge, but on our interactions with each other, and the context in which those interactions arise. The context brings as much to a space of knowledge connection/exchange as do the parties involved in the exchange.

This point, along with the others highlighted in the article swished around in my mind, and got the usual nod of “okay I suppose this makes sense”.  However for me, I prefer to deal in the concrete, rather than the abstract.  Examples, examples, examples!!  I find philosophical writing very difficult to digest.

Interestingly, I believe an example that may support George’s point was provided in one of the comments at the conclusion of the article, and a rather unexpected one at that. Of course, I could have misinterpreted the meaning of this point, and so my example may not be appropriate.  Please correct me if I have the wrong end of the stick.

The comment that I am referring to is the one posted by Catherine Fitzpatrick, where she doesn’t mince words in her assessment of George’s writing:

One exercise I will assign to you for your homework in this course, which will make up 10 percent of your grade average, is to take an essay like this and stop using references to other writers, waving icons and badgets around.
The average intelligent college-educated reading person such as myself can be expected to know who Spencer, Dewey, and Piaget are, and what they represent, although they may want to peak back at Wikipedia. But many of the others are insider’s baseball and obscure and dense.
A sentence like this: “Social learning theory. Here we can draw from Bandura’s emphasis on self-efficacy, Bruner, Vygotsky, and others” — is completely opaque, show-offy, and therefore stupid. It conveys nothing. Unless we are one of the 6-7 really nerdy obsessives working with you in your institute on these ideas, or in some other e-learning collective that things these folks are the cat’s miaow, we won’t understand the references. Sure, we can, like good little Googlers, go read this: http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/BanEncy.html But what do YOU Mean to say about it? You might wish to spell out, rather than cryptically reference, what is is YOU mean to say about this concept.
Thus, a paragraph like no. 5, “Concept of Mind,” could easily add 3-4 sentences and tease out what is important about “Weicks’ papers on heedful interrelating.” Showy cataloguing of other sources that resonate with your own thinking don’t make for an interesting paper. Spelling them out coherently would.
Re: “the fluid nature of knowledge”. When are you content to let a text *stay put* and become immutable, and be held on deposit for accessing throughout the ages?

When I first read this post (and after I stopped grinning from it’s indignant tone), it started to resonate with me (sorry George ).  However, the following statement by Catherine made clear to me what is going on:  “It conveys nothing. Unless we are one of the 6-7 really nerdy obsessives working with you in your institute on these ideas, or in some other e-learning collective that things these folks are the cat’s miaow, we won’t understand the references.”  I can only speculate that the “show-offy” references described by Catherine have been examined in greater detail within the course context in which the post was written, and are therefore more meaningful to the students in the course, than the greater world audience.  Herein lies the example of how I see context being just as critical to the knowledge exchange as the participants themselves.

I am reminded of a discussion I had around the idea of targeted audiences for blogging.  Perhaps getting off track with the intent of this post, but aside reading if anyone is interested.

So, now I’ll ask a question.  Have I understood the intent of George’s point around context as it pertains to connectivism?  I’d like to hear people’s thoughts.  If I have missed the point, does someone have an example to illustrate it?

Damien Clark.

Philosophies of Technology – Technological determinism

This post forms part of a series, where I am attempting to identify my philosophies around teaching and technology, and reflect on the impact it has on my instructional design, as detailed in my initial post.

This third part of the series is focused on the philosophy of technological determinism.

Kanuka’s (2008) summary for a definition of technological determinism is explained as:  “Within this orientation [of technological determinism], technologies are viewed as causal agents determining our uses and having a pivotal role in social change.”  So to me, this implies that the technology itself is the focal point of the learner’s education.  Kanuka then goes on to explain that technological determinism is typically aligned with negative views of technology in education, to the extent that it actually harms the learning process, rather than supports.  Views on this point by Noble, et. al. (1998)  have been discussed by Kanuka where she says:

Noble and colleagues (Noble, 1991; Noble, Shneiderman, Herman, Agre, & Denning, 1998) have written extensively on the relationships between distance-delivered e-learning and de-professionalization of the academy.  These scholars are concerned about the erosion of academic freedom, and thus they are aggressive critics arguing that the expansion of distance-delivered e-learning as a leading-edge movement to commercialize education will work to de-professionalize faculty members and erode academic freedom (e.g., Noble, 1998).

Another view from a range of scholars as described by Kanuka question:

modern technologies and many condemn technology for disseminating an onslaught of incoherent and fragmented trivialities to the world at the expense of engagement, reflectivity, and depth.  They also argue that modern technologies and growing neoliberalism are creating a rising capitalistic climate that includes political-economic interests such as comodification, commercialization, and corporatization of education.

Ouch.  I wonder what they would make of my ranting here on my blog about their ideas – fragmented trivialities?   So from what I understand, those who are technological determinists are generally considered to be the ‘negative nellys’  – those who believe technology is the root cause of de-professionalism, erosion of academic freedom, and the proliferation of surface rather than deep learning.

Well this is certainly not me.  Thankfully, Kanuka continues:

The assumption underpinning these views is that technology determines our uses and impacts society – in a negative way.  Although not often given the label of technological determinist, scholars who view technology as influencing our education systems in positive ways also hold the same assumption that technology determines our uses and impacts society, but in a beneficial way.  In the area of e-learning, for example, Garrison and Anderson (2003) assert that educational technologies can transform the learning experiences in positive ways, resulting in increasing the quality of learning experiences.

So, while not typically identified as technological determinists, there are groups that share the view that technology determines our uses and impacts society, but instead in positive rather than negative ways.  Don’t you just love how people like to work in black and white, right and wrong.  Perhaps, just perhaps technology can be a negative or positive influence or even both, depending on the context.

Kanuka through her literature survey identifies a few examples of where technology as a causal agent has had a positive influence over education.  One in particular:

For example, Lapadat (2002) argues that with asynchronous text-based Internet technology, learners have the means to compose their ideas and thoughts into a written form of communication.  This, according to Garrison and Anderson, provides learners with the ability to critically reflect on their views, which is necessary for higher-ordered learning.

I wonder how using asynchronous text-based Internet technology for composing ideas and thoughts into a written form of communication is any different or any better to writing on a piece of paper?  Surely a learner can reflect just as well with pen and paper as they can with Internet technology?  Of course, using Internet technology can offers a significant sized audience and may cause one to think carefully about what they choose to write.  You would think this would apply to me.   Then there is the following point where Kanuka adds:

As these examples illustrate, both advocates and opponents of e-learning believe that e-learning technologies determine the uses and the agents.  In less bi-polar positions, this orientation also asserts that the effects of new media (e.g., social software) has influenced post-modern ideas.  Poster (1997), for example, puts forth the notion that the Internet has instantiated new forms of interaction and power relations between users, resulting in significant social impacts.  Nguyen and Alexander (1996) assert further that the Internet has produced new realities in our everyday lives.

It is the social aspects of Internet technology that is really making a positive contribution to education.

Kanuka concludes with the following which highlights the shortcomings of technological determinism as:

This one-dimensional view of technology suffers similar logistical problems with the uses- and social-determinist orientations.  Educators positioning themselves from a one-dimensional view of the impact of technology perceive the properties of a particular technology as having the ability to predetermine educcational outcomes.  Little, if any, attention is given to the effects of educational, social, and historical forces that have shaped both educational systems and educational technologies.

I this Kanuka makes a very good point here in that all these philosophies are very much one-dimensional, narrowly focused and oversimplified.  There are so many factors at play in education.  I can’t say that I subscribe to any one of these philosophies as an educator, although I will need to reflect on this further.  Something else that strikes me is that discussion around the positive or negative aspects of technology is focused on distance education and e-learning. It is as though technology and distance education are exclusively intertwined and not relevant for other modes of study such as face-to-face.

KANUKA, H. (2008) Understanding eLearning Technologies-in-Practice Throgh Philosophies-in-Practice. IN ANDERSON, T. (Ed.) The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. 2nd ed. Edmonton, AU Press.

Philosophies of Technology – Social determinism

This post forms part of a series, where I am attempting to identify my philosophies around teaching and technology, and reflect on the impact it has on my instructional design, as detailed in my initial post.

This second part of the series is focused on the philosophy of social determinism.  I commented in my initial post, the difficulty I have had with reading Kanuka article (reference at the bottom).  This part of the article was quite a handful.  I’m not sure if my interpretation below is correct or not.  Perhaps others have some insight into social determinism that may correct any misunderstandings I have.  Feedback is most welcome.

Kanuka introduces the concept of social determinism as: “… educators are concerned with the integration of technological artefacts within social systems and cultural cntexts.  This perspective emphasizes the way our uses of technologies are affected by the social structures and the social construction of technological artefacts.” This was the main critical failure identified by Kanuka in the uses determinism philosophy as I understand it. So with social determinism, the choice of technology is informed by the context in terms of society and culture.

Kanuka continues:  “Educators holding this view are concerned about the ways that social and technological uses shape the form and content of the learning experiences.”

So there is an acknowledgement that society and choice of technology affect the form and content of the learning experience.  This does sound sensible to me.

Kanuka then suggests that unless education providers learn to adapt and innovate in a marketplace of accelerating globalisation and increased competition, their long-term viability may be in jeopardy.  The solution she suggests from the social determinist is to “move to technologically innovative and consumer-oriented education.”

Here is a quote that I am not quite clear what she means.  Kanuka states:

These views rest upon the way technology is socially embedded and constituted.  In particular, social choices shape the form and content of technological artefacts (Dahlberg, 2004).  As with uses determinism, however, social determinism has logistical issues that are difficult to resolve.  Specifically, this orientation can lead to flawed understandings of educational technology, if developed without reference to user agency or material limits (Dahlberg).  The line of reasoning in this orientation – that technologies embody social choice – negates a multifaceted understanding of the place of agency in technological development … Social contexts do not simply manipulate education systems at will.  In our everyday lives, there is a dynamic mutual shaping between the social, technology, and users’ environments.

Yikes!  It is clear I am no philosopher.   I am guessing what Kanuka is saying is that technology is not socially embedded, but forms part of a 3-way relationship between sociality, technology, and the user agents, and the learning is shaped by all 3 aspects together.

The third instalment analyses technological determinism.

KANUKA, H. (2008) Understanding eLearning Technologies-in-Practice Throgh Philosophies-in-Practice. IN ANDERSON, T. (Ed.) The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. 2nd ed. Edmonton, AU Press.

Philosophies of Technology – Uses determinism

As part of my studies, I have been asked to identify my philosophies around teaching and technology, and reflect on the impact it has on my instructional design. We have been asked to read Kanuka (2008) as a source of information on various teaching and technology philosophies, and how they are often aligned.

I have to say upfront that I found this article incredibly difficult to read.  Kanuka’s writing style is very abstract and with absence of any concrete examples on which to relate to my own experiences.  Actually, there were a few analogies that were quoted from other authors.  This did help a little to understand the point she was trying to make.  So I have decided first to try and reflect on what I have read and see if I can explain in my own words, her definition of the 3 types technological philosophies relating to education:  uses determinism, social determinism, and technological determinism.

First cab off the rank is uses determinism.

Kanuka’s lead in sentence states:

In its simplest sense, this position [of uses determinism] emphasizes technological uses and focuses on the ways in which we use technologies within learning and teaching transactions.  In this approach, technologies are perceived as neutral tools and are simply devices that extend our capacities.

So the basis of uses determinism is that technology is nothing more than a tool that is used by learners to learn.  Kanuka goes on to say:  “As users, we determine the effects of technological artefacts.”

So my understanding is that uses determinism postulates that in designing technological artefacts for learning, the designer can create a learning environment with deterministic outcomes unaffected by the technology itself.

This view is elaborated through an analogy by Jonassen where she quotes from a paper written in 1996:  “‘carpenters use their tools to build things; the tools do not control the carpenter.  Similarly, computers should be used as tools for helping learners build knowledge; they should not control the leaner’ (p.4).”  Kanuka introduces another analogy by Clark with “In his writings, Clark claims, in part, that technologies are ‘mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition’ (1983, p.445).”

To me, these views/ideas seem quite bold, something Kanuka addresses later in the article where she states:

In particular, viewing e-learning technology as a neutral tool assumes that there is a technological fix for an educational problem.  This instrumentalist line of thinking assumes that technologies exist without social or political origins, and that uses and users are the casual agents in the production of social action (Lacroix & Tremblay, 1997) – often celebrating unconstrained consumer sovereignty, and resulting in instrumentalism and/or structuralism (Golding & Murdock, 2000).  The problem with instrumentalism is that there is an inclination to place emphasis upon the intentionality of agents, with an unbalanced focus on the interactions between the actors and the technologies.  As a result, educators tend to narrowly focus on the role of the agents and disregard the broader social structures and/or technological artefacts’ effects on the learning outcomes, leading to explanations that overemphasize the power and autonomy of actors.

Wow, this was quite a morsel to digest.   My interpretation is that the idea of uses determinism takes a simplistic view of technology as a tool and does not match real world complexity, especially in the years that have past since the ideas of Clark and Jonassen were published.  Especially today where such technology provides such a wealth of information and opportunities to share and collaborate with others.  There are so many aspects of modern day technology that is beyond the control of any one entity.  How do you control the actions of others using the same technology for example?  Equating modern day technology to a hammer is a gross oversimplification.

Kanuka concludes her discussion of uses determinism by saying that:  “The belief that individual actors have complete control over the effects of a technological artefact is a misguided and naive assumption.”  I would have to concur with that conclusion.  Uses determinism would not be my technology philosophy for learning.

The next instalment is discussion on social determinism.

KANUKA, H. (2008) Understanding eLearning Technologies-in-Practice Throgh Philosophies-in-Practice. IN ANDERSON, T. (Ed.) The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. 2nd ed. Edmonton, AU Press.

Improving university teaching, learning theory, and curriculum design

I read this article by David Jones some time ago, and have been thinking it over.  As an early career curriculum designer, I am trying to find my place in the world of education, and how I can be an effective learning designer.

My understanding is that David in his article argues in order to improve university teaching, we should focus on teacher reflection, rather than learning theories.  Reflection is the lowest common denominator in any improvement of learning and teaching practices.  Without it, the teacher is destined to make the same mistakes over and over.  This is highlighted by Biggs and Tang in their book Teaching for Quality Learning at University 3rd edition, which I am currently (trying to) read, and reflect upon, and is drawn upon in part by David (I believe – it is getting late and I have an assessment due tomorrow ).  Biggs and Tang state:

Wise and effective teaching is not, however, simply a matter of applying general principles of teaching according to rule; they need adapting to each teacher’s own personal strengths and teaching context… Expert teachers continually reflect on how they might teach even better.

Let us imagine that Susan and Robert graduated 20 years ago [as teachers].  Susan now is a teacher with 20 years’ experience; Robert is a teacher with one year’s experience repeated 19 times.  Susan is a reflective teacher:  each significant experience, particularly of failure, has been a learning experience, so she gets better and better.  Robert is a reactive teacher.  He goes through the same motions year after year …  The kind of thinking displayed by Susan, but not by Robert, is known as ‘reflective practice’.”

It occurs to me that prescribing any particular learning theory (such as constructive alignment) is not the answer, after reading a blog post by Stephen Downes.  Stephen critiques a paper by Dicks and Ives that conducted a study into how instructional designers design.  In particular, Stephen highlights the following quote from Dicks, and Ives:

Our interviews appear to confirm the findings of Kenny, Zhang, Schwier, and Campbell (2004) that instructional designers do not do their work by following established models, nor by basing actions on theory. Instead, our designers’ tactics suggest they view design as an ‘ill-structured problem’ (Jonassen, 2002; Schon, 1987) or ‘wicked problem’ (Becker, 2007) with many possible solutions, which they pursue with a large repertoire of social and cognitive skills.

Stephen had the following to say about this quote:  “Which really forces the question of whether our discipline should continue its ill-founded focus on (this person or that’s) theory. “

I’ve had the opportunity to talk to quite a few different seasoned instructional designers over the past couple of weeks, and I have seen a common theme emerge that is aligned with the findings of Dicks and Ives above:  there is no one ultimate learning theory.  All have stated that while they may have a preferred theory, it is rarely implemented solely to a learning design.  Choice of theory is informed greatly by the context in which the learning is to occur.  No less is the actual teacher of the course a critical factor in deciding which theories are appropriate.  If the teacher has been teaching for many years and has a traditional behaviourist approach to their teaching; trying to model their course design around constructivism or connectivism is not going to prove to be an effective learning design.  This is unless the teacher was motivated to reflect on their practice and consider alternate ways of doing things.

I have been investigating various learning theories over the past week – hardly a deep analysis, but I always considered religion as an appropriate analogy for learning theories.  Everyone has their own view, and they can’t all be right.  However, what I am discovering is that learning theories tend to support one another more so than contradict, which was my former view.  So its probably not so much about which one is right, but which one is right for the given context.

I am finding learning theory absolutely fascinating, yet I do not have sufficient time to study as deep as I would like.  I have decided to remain completely open minded in terms of what tools (theories) I choose to inform my learning designs.  Studying many different theories arms me with many tools, and I hope this will mean I am a more rounded designer.  The skill will be to use these tools in the right combinations to maximise effectiveness.

Definition: Behaviourism

As part of my Certificate in Emerging Technologies for Learning, I am studying 4 popular learning theories. The first theory I am discovering is behaviourism.

I have read an article by Melissa Standridge hosted on the Department of Eduational Psychology and Instructional Technology wiki, from the University of Georgia.  The article begins with a definition of behaviourism, which was stated as:

Behaviorism is primarily concerned with observable and measurable aspects of human behavior. In defining behavior, behaviorist learning theories emphasize changes in behavior that result from stimulus-response associations made by the learner. Behavior is directed by stimuli. An individual selects one response instead of another because of prior conditioning and psychological drives existing at the moment of the action (Parkay & Hass, 2000).

The article then proceeds with a summary of the work from behaviourism advocates. Much of this work was conducted through experiments on animals.  I wasn’t quite sure what to think at this point.

Work conducted by Skinner involved an approach known as operant conditioning.  Melissa writes:

His model was based on the premise that satisfying responses are conditioned, while unsatisfying ones are not. Operant conditioning is the rewarding of part of a desired behavior or a random act that approaches it. Skinner remarked that “the things we call pleasant have an energizing or strengthening effect on our behavior” (Skinner, 1972, p. 74). Through Skinner’s research on animals, he concluded that both animals and humans would repeat acts that led to favorable outcomes, and suppress those that produced unfavorable results (Shaffer, 2000). If a rat presses a bar and receives a food pellet, he will be likely to press it again. Skinner defined the bar-pressing response as operant, and the food pellet as a reinforcer. Punishers, on the other hand, are consequences that suppress a response and decrease the likelihood that it will occur in the future. If the rat had been shocked every time it pressed the bar that behavior would cease.

While it seemed briefly amusing to think of students as experimental rats in a lab (classroom), the final sentence of this paragraph got me thinking:  “Skinner [B. F. (1904-1990)] believed the habits that each of us develops result from our unique operant learning experiences (Shaffer, 2000).”  I am currently reading Biggs’ Teaching for Quality Learning at University and so I am immersed in learning theories around constructivism.   Biggs’ (2007) states:  “All [forms of constructivism] emphasise that the learners construct knowledge with their own activities, building on what they already know.  Teaching is not a matter of transmitting but of engaging students in active learning, building their knowledge in terms of what they already understand.”  I wonder if these two learning theories compliment each other in some small way.  I’m not quite sure how to define or articulate the link at this point – its just getting too late.  Will need to give this further thought.

Reflecting on my own prior teaching activities, I have employed behaviourist tactics in my classes without even realising it. One of the key aspects of success with behavourism is to understand your learners desires and to select highly attractive and valuable reinforcers.  As Melissa puts it:  “They change behaviors to satisfy the desires they have learned to value.”

Some of the behaviourist designs I have employed include:

Chocolate bars

When I was teaching network security, there was a particular module of learning that students found difficult to remain engaged in.  Without the opportunity to make changes to the design of this learning module, instead I attempted to improve engagement in the material and the class activities through small rewards of the confectionery type.  The class activity was question and answer sessions where I would go around the room soliciting solutions from students.  Those who got the answers correct would receive a chocolate reward.

It was mildly effective.  In subsequent offerings, I redesigned the learning activity which proved more effective.

1Gb Memory sticks

Similar to the situation of the chocolate bars, I made a competition of the question and answer time and kept a tally of correct answers for students.  The top two students received a free 1Gb memory stick.  At the time, 1Gb was quite large, and being IT students, it was an attractive item.  This was more effective than the chocolates.  Seems it was a better reinforcer than the confectionery.

Access to a desirable learning activity

When I was teaching data communications, I included an activity that was popular with students.  The activity was for students to be hands-on with creating their own network cables using Cat 5e UTP cable, connectors and a cable crimper. I organised for network engineers and support staff from the university’s networking team to volunteer their time in my class, and assist with the learning activity.  I split students into groups, and then assigned them a mentor from the volunteers.  Each would then guide the students through the process of connectorising their computer cables. On completion, the students would then attach their cable to a tester and determine if the cable was connectorised correctly.

The first time I ran this activity, students were unable to recall the order in which the individual wires were to be connected, despite setting it as homework.  This delayed the activity and quite a few students resulted in faulty cables.

To improve on this situation, the next time I ran this activity, I set the homework to rote memorise the order of the wires.  They are colour coded.  The students were told that they would have to recite the order of the coloured wires from memory before they were permitted into the activity room.

On the day, I went around the room asking students the order – those who had it correct from memory were permitted into the adjacent room to commence the activity.  Those who couldn’t remember, would have time to revise, and after cycling through the class, I would return to them.  Three quarters of the group had it correct first time round.  The activity ran to schedule and there was only 1 faulty cable at the end.

Similar results were repeated in the following offering of the course. This proved to be an effective design.  Also on reflection, with the inclusion of the volunteer mentors, it was a form of cognitive apprenticeship.

Desire to win

It had been suggested to me that nothing will bring out the inner fire of a geek more than a little healthy competition.  This was in response to queries about how to improve engagement from the students.

When I was teaching System Administration, I was looking for a way for students to develop problem solving skills, and at the same time, gain a deeper understanding of how the UNIX shell parses and executes commands.  So I set a challenge and divided the class into two groups.  As teams, they were required to write a UNIX shell command that would perform a specified set of actions with the greatest efficiency, and the minimum exec system calls.  My apologies for the non-geek reader.

There was no prize but the glory of being the winner.  Boy were they right.  The students engaged with gusto, searching through documentation, man pages, howtos (even espionage) to come up with the ideal solution.  The winners had bragging rights for weeks to come.  It was also encouraging to see that the score difference between the two groups was by only 1 point, and the winning team’s score was only 1 point short of my own model solution.

It seems to me that behaviourism is not the trendy learning theory of the day, yet in certain circumstances, I believe they can be quite effective.  It is not something however I would use to underpin an entire course design.

Draft Introduction to Learning Plan for Web 2.0

I am developing an online course in conjunction with the PLE@CQUni project.  Following is an initial draft introduction for my learning design blueprint as part of my study of Instructional Design in Adult Education course.

My main concern with my plan is cognitive load, especially when learners have limited time.  I am thinking an approach to helping with this is to space out the course so there is less time pressure.  Hopefully this can be done in such a way that the learners do not lose their way.

Any feedback is most welcome.

Web 2.0 for Life Long Learners

Brief description and overall objective

The objective of this course is to expose teaching academics to social networking technologies, and to explore ways in which social networking tools can improve their learning and teaching practices through the lense of the seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education (7PGPUE).

This course introduces teaching academics of undergraduate and postgraduate courses to social networking concepts, technologies, and practice delivered online and supported by face-to-face classes.  Initially, the learner is guided through a series of activities that promote collaboration and reflection on the very technology they are learning and using.  Learners will then begin to reflect on the 7PGPUE and evaluate their own learning and teaching practices with an eye for how these social networking technologies may enhance their course designs.  It is expected that learners will develop their own simple personal learning environment (PLE) as a product of the course, and will be able to introduce the same type of intervention to a small aspect of their own course.

Description of learners, their context and that of the instructors and institution

Learners of the course will be primarily teaching academics, mostly those responsible for course management and development in a university context.  They will be of diverse ethnic backgrounds, attitudes to technology and teaching disciplines.  Most learners will be located on a single campus, while a small few learners may be sparsely located over 9 alternate campuses scattered across the country.  Learners are likely to have significant demands of their time in their day-to-day work commitments, and may need to dedicate some personal time to see the course through to completion.  The course will be voluntary, so it is expected that learners will be largely engaged and motivated to learn.  Technical skills will vary greatly among the cohort from laymen to experts.  It is expected that all learners will have access to high-speed Internet access, at the very least from the workplace, though dial-up Internet will be sufficient for most aspects of the course.  The course will be facilitated through web 2 technologies only, so despite the institution having an LMS, it will not be required for this unit.  The instructors will have a similar context to the learners, also with varying technical and instructional design skills.

Biggs: Ch2 – Constructivism and Phenomenography

Constructivism as a concept is something that I am slowly coming to understand.  Then along comes phenomenography to upset the party.  Biggs provides a very brief discussion of the two and highlights their differences.  Let’s see if I have got it.

Before I get started, I’ll add that my conceptualisation of constructive alignment is ever evolving.  I’ll be keen to revisit this page some time in the future to see how my understanding of this concept has deepened.  In fact, I’ll probably update my conceptualisation of constructivism and constructive alignment as I progress through Biggs.

Everytime I hear the term constructivism, the following picture is what appears in my mind (well not exactly this picture, but you get the picture .

Metaphor for constructivism

Each row of cards is constructed in such a way that it builds upon the cards below it.  It is this scaffolding that underpins constructivism – you construct new knowledge on the basis of what you already know.  Furthermore, hearing about it (transmission – level 1 teacher) is not going to build another row of cards (new knowledge).  Neither is watching someone else demonstrate it (teacher centric – level 2 teacher) – the demonstrator will have constructed a new row of cards (knowledge), but not the learner.  So the other underpinning concept of constructivism is that you construct knowledge through activities that are likely to result in achieving the desired outcomes. It is all about what the learner does (student centric – level 3 teacher). It must be an active learning environment, not passive.

Back to the analogy, each row of cards is constructed in such a way that it fits or aligns with the cards below it.  If we are learning something new and it doesn’t neatly fit with what we have done before (the existing rows of cards), then we reject it, and attempt it another way. Now enter phenomenography.  The learner’s perspective or view of the world influences what they learn.  If a new concept challenges their current understanding (their existing stack of cards), then they will reject it in favour of something that does fit.  Biggs makes the comment that through teaching, it is possible to change (broaden) a learner’s stack of cards (perspective), or to in fact build a new stack of cards to assist learners in constructing knowledge.