Friday, February 29, 2008

The Advantages of Closing a Few Doors

From the New York Times:
The Advantages of Closing a Few Doors - New York Times: "In a series of experiments, hundreds of students could not bear to let their options vanish, even though it was obviously a dumb strategy (and they weren’t even asked to burn anything).

The experiments involved a game that eliminated the excuses we usually have for refusing to let go. In the real world, we can always tell ourselves that it’s good to keep options open.

You don’t even know how a camera’s burst-mode flash works, but you persuade yourself to pay for the extra feature just in case. You no longer have anything in common with someone who keeps calling you, but you hate to just zap the relationship."


For those of us who keep too many options open and risk drowning in information overload. You know what the sensible thing to do is? Ignore stuff! YES!!

What's del.icio.us today...

Links for 2008-02-27 [del.icio.us]

Posted: 28 Feb 2008 12:00 AM CST


Thursday, February 28, 2008

More connections less solutions?

Newswise Social and Behavioral Sciences News | The Downside of a Good Idea: "When information is freely shared, good ideas can stunt innovation by distracting others from pursuing even better ideas, according to Indiana University cognitive scientist Robert Goldstone."

Very H806 relevant article. Too much connectivity has its drawbacks... this study suggests that information overload as a result of a connected economy could stifle creativity and that smaller can be better.

Thought-provoking and worth returning to.

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

What's del.icio.us today...


Links for 2008-02-25 [del.icio.us]

Posted: 26 Feb 2008 12:00 AM CST


Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Other web 2.0 musings...

at...

http://kindalearning.blogspot.com/2008/02/web-20-much-when.html

But I'm too lazy to retype for here, so this is the link to my other blog's entry on the whole web 2.0 deal.

Monday, February 25, 2008

Web 2.0 Much?

My boring old computer
Could type up my reports
Could send out my dull letters
And business-like retorts.

But web 2.0 came and changed things,
Now all is quite bizarre
Linked-in, betwittered, "Friended";
Connections from afar.

The data stream is endless
I’m never ever friendless.
Micro-blogging here we go...
My life’s minutiae, blow by blow.

I know when you're out jogging
I know when you've been blogging…
Superficial? Artificial?
Anything real to read?

Drip, drip, drip, drip
Voices all around;
Can anyone truly hear these days,
Drowned out by walls of sound?

Presidential candidates
Themselves are all a-twitter
Chirp loudest and be heard by all...
Political big hitter??

Online living...
Offline losing?
Web 2.0 democracy?
What are we really choosing?

MySpace is now your space.
'I' transformed to 'we'.
Somewhere, somehow
I lost a part of me?

Sunday, February 24, 2008

What's del.icio.us today...


Links for 2008-02-22 [del.icio.us]

Posted: 23 Feb 2008 12:00 AM CST

  • Connectivism Blog
    "Collective or connective intelligence" - great article by George Siemens which gets you thinking about learning styles in the networked world

Friday, February 22, 2008

What's del.icio.us today...

Links for 2008-02-20 [del.icio.us]

Posted: 21 Feb 2008 12:00 AM CST


Thursday, February 21, 2008

There is good reason to be worried about declining rates of reading | Comment is free | The Guardian

Response, Sunil Iyengar and Mark Bauerlein: There is good reason to be worried about declining rates of reading | Comment is free | The Guardian: "Johnson denies there is any evidence of damage linked with excessive viewing and surfing. Yet sufficient data has led the American Academy of Pediatrics to advise parents to keep children's rooms free of electronic media. Reading is at risk, but so are the minds of the young; we need a more critical view of their digital environment and its omnipresent allure. Now is the time for educators and intellectuals to produce sound empirical studies of the risks and benefits of electronic media."


Interesting response to last week's Guardian article on The Dawn of the Digital Natives. I wonder why the claim for 'Now is the time...' though? Why now? Why empirical studies? What would the real impact be of finding out these results since one common cry is that parents can't and don't control their children's exposure to media anyway? Do we accept that the world has changed and that we live in a state of connectedness, whatever that may bring? Do we resist and step back while the world carries on changing anyway?

Yes, it's good to understand the impact of the changes around us... but panic at the developments the digital age holds? No. There's good and bad in everything, isn't there? TV is said to have seen off books... but people still read, Amazon thrives and libraries do business. The publishing of the written word was said to have changed the nature of childhood (Postman, 1995) ... but we still remember our 'idyllic' childhoods despite the fact that they were permeated with literature of one form or another. We use the internet, are connected via mobile phones, social networks, online, offline, face-to-face, alone, together... but it's only the 'minds of the young' who are at risk?? Pespective people. Put it in perspective before you wind yourselves up into a frenzy and risk waking up from the panic to find the world has changed and the point at which you could have affected that change has gone... :o)

What's del.icio.us today...


Links for 2008-02-19 [del.icio.us]

Posted: 20 Feb 2008 12:00 AM CST


Wednesday, February 20, 2008

What's del.icio.us today...

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Felder Silverman Learning Model test

Your Score

You received a score of 4/7 for your ACT/REF.

You received a score of 1/10 for your SEN/INT.

You received a score of 8/3 for your VIS/VRB.

You received a score of 3/8 for your SEQ/GLO.

LEARNING STYLE SCALES

How to interpret your score ...

Let us say, for instance, that you received a score of 5/1 for your ACT/REF. This would mean that you are leaning more toward being an active learner than a reflective learner ...

Keep these general guidelines in mind when interpreting your score ...

  • If your score on a scale is 1-3, you are fairly well balanced on the two dimensions of that scale. For instance, a score of 2/1 for your SEN/INT would indicate that although you lean a little more towards being a sensing learner than an intuitive learner, you are balanced between the two.

  • If your score on a scale is 5 or 7, you have a moderate preference for one dimension of the scale and will learn more easily in a teaching environment which favors that dimension. For instance, a score of 1/6 for your VIS/VRB indicates that you are a verbal learner and much less a visual learner.

  • If your score on a scale is 9 or 11, you have a very strong preference for one dimension of the scale. You may have real difficulty learning in an environment which does not support that preference. For instance, a score of 11/0 for your SEQ/GLO would indicate that you prefer to learn sequentially over globally.
Comment:

The above says I have a moderate preference for being a reflective learner. A strong preference for being an intuitive learner. A moderately strong preference for being a visual and global learner. I guess I'd agree with that in general. I certainly like to reflect on things and like to think about the 'big picture' and need that to make sense to have lightbulb moments. I flit from place to place mentally until I 'get' the details of what it is I'm trying to understand. I hate trying to learn umpteen facts by rote and need to be able to relate what I'm learning to me and my life to help make sense of it. But... I do also like to diagram my ideas and adore things like maps etc for making sense of things so I'm not totally a verbal learner either.

I found the test answers somewhat restrictive and leading in parts. They didn't quite 'fit' me and the nearest answer wasn't even a 'best fit' either. There was no 'both' option for the points at which I genuinely couldn't differentiate and ended up having to plump for answer because the test wouldn't let me progress without doing so. For example, the question asking whether I prefer to study in a study group or alone - I just couldn't make up my mind. I study alone when I need or have the opportunity to study alone. If I have the opportunity to study in a group or need to... then I do.

Just shows. These tests give a flavour of you, but they don't give the whole picture. Even years of psychoanalysis and parting with hefty wads of cash wouldn't truly do that... would it?!

Further links:
http://www.crc4mse.org/ILS/self_test.html - the test itself
http://www.crc4mse.org/ILS/ILS_explained.html - for explanation of the results

Learning styles classification systems

Based on the summary from 'How do People Learn', CiPD, 2007 - but with a few additional resources thrown in for good measure!

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator©
This model classifies learners according to their preferences on scales derived from psychologist Carl Jung’s theory of psychological types: extraverts or introverts; sensors or intuitors; thinkers or feelers; judgers or perceivers

For more detailed information see:
http://www.aptcentral.org/aptmbtiw.htm
www.gsu.edu/~dschjb/wwwmbti.html
http://members.tripod.com/~PersonalityInstitute/Myers-BriggsTypeIndictor.htm
http://www.myersbriggs.org/

Felder-Silverman Learning Model
This classification has five categories – sensing or intuitive learners; visual or verbal learners; inductive or deductive learners; active or reflective learners; sequential or global learners

For more detailed information see:
http://www.universaleducator.com/LearnStyle/felder.html
http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILSpage.html

Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument
This method classifies learners in terms of their relative preferences for thinking in four different modes – left brain cerebral (logical thinkers); left brain limbic (sequential thinkers); right brain limbic (emotional thinkers); right brain cerebral (holistic thinkers)

For more detailed information see:
http://www.universaleducator.com/LearnStyle/brain.html

Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory
This classifies learners as having a preference for (a) concrete experience or abstract conceptualisation, or (b) active experimentation or reflective observation

For more detailed information see:
http://www.universaleducator.com/LearnStyle/kolb.html
http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-explrn.htm

Honey and Mumford’s Classification
Developed from the Kolb’s inventory and learning cycle this model has four components – activists; reflectors; pragmatists; theorists

For more detailed information see:
http://www.peterhoney.com

(“Learning in Practice”, CiPD, p.44, 2007)

What John said...

The lovely John Millner asked a really interesting question in our H806 tutor group about whether or not instruction was akin to behaviourism. I’ve had a mull and the following was my resulting ponderings on his question…

John Millner writes:
Im doing the reading on behaviourism, and am having difficulty understanding why instruction per se is regarded as a stimulus/reward process. Up to now I would have thought that attending a traditional lecture was an example of learning as understanding (ie, in the cognitive camp) but apparently it is more about behaviour modification thru instruction, and therefore in the behaviourist camp.
can anyone help me out here?

Me in response:
The CiPD report “How do People Learn”, p.17, says that:

"Practice takes the form of question (stimulus)-answer (response) frames that expose the learner to the topic in gradual steps. The learner is conditioned to make a response each time and receives immediate feedback. Learning is ordered in stages of difficulty so that the response to each step is likely to be correct; thus offering opportunities from positive reinforcement. Progress is achieved in small incremental steps and is 'shaped' towards a positive outcome".

If you think about a typical 'stand at the front and spout' lecture, the lecturer is drip, drip, dripping information at the students. They might ask a question which they expect a particular response to in order to continue the lecture. This is positive reinforcement. The students are being conditioned to respond in a particular way which is deemed behaviourally appropriate by the incremental accummulation of knowledge and the questions which are set to test that knowledge. The response consequence is the 'correct' answer achieved. There is a power relationship there as well. The lecturer lectures the students. It isn't the students lecturing, is it? Someone has the knowledge. Someone else doesn't. The book describes the behaviourist approach as having the focus on the expert - the lecturer is the 'expert' in this context. However, other types of learning such as social learning can happen outside the lecture theatre context, for example, chatting things over with others in the Student Union etc - so although there may be behaviourist aspects to the traditional lecture, the university environment affords the application of several different types of learning.

I get the impression that all of these types of learning are not distinct learning events but can flow into and out of one another. If you view a lecture as not belonging in the behaviourist camp, it's probably because its effectiveness was heightened by mixing it with other contexts and muddying the waters of why a particular learning theory was in place at any point. But that's probably just my blurry ideas on what it's all about... or something!

Anyway, my feeling is that this sort of reflection on what I’ve read may be useful. Not least because I’m prone to hefty shifts in thinking having had a think about someone else’s perspective on a topic! Will keep on chewing it over. :o)

What's del.icio.us today...

Links for 2008-02-17 [del.icio.us]

Posted: 18 Feb 2008 12:00 AM CST


Monday, February 18, 2008

What's del.icio.us this week...

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Theories of learning - summary

"How Do People Learn – Research Report, Chapter 2" – CiPD

The following tables look potentially useful for referring to throughout H806, so I've copied them here and added in some brief reflections of my own…

Summary of approaches to learning by cluster

 

For work

At work

Through work

Behaviour

Priming

Training

Guiding

Understanding

Engaging

Enriching

Problem-solving

Knowledge construction

Reflection

Enquiring

Immersing

Social practice

Networking

Participating (in communities)

Teamworking

(CiPD, 2007, p.28)

The question that I'm not 100% sure of here is why is it all about work? The typical OU student is anything but typical. They can be teenagers who are yet to imagine which career they'd like to go into, to mature students who are looking to change career or study for fun… or retired people who are looking for a challenge but have no intention of a directly related work application for their new found skills and knowledge. How so to apply the above to them? How does it all fit together in a distance learning environment where courses may be offered from within an institute / employment situation to open content courses where the provider has no idea which approach would be most applicable since the purpose of study is unknown?

How to select an appropriate approach to learning if your students are unknown / anonymous?


 

Summary of approaches to learning by focus, process and outcome

 

Focus

Process

Outcome

Behaviour

The expert

Reinforcement

Skills

Understanding

The content

Delivery

Knowledge

Knowledge construction

The learner

Activity

Performance

Social practice

The group

Practice

Change

(CiPD, 2007, p.29)

Have to say, I do like this summary and I can relate to it in my own contexts, but I'm not sure what is meant by 'performance' in the outcome column for knowledge construction. Is performance really the outcome? And performance in what sense? Improvements in performance? By whose standards? Qualitatively? Quantitively?

This seems to me to be pretty ambiguous and although I'd have said my preferred approach to learning belongs in the constructivist camp, I still don't recognise the outcome here. I guess it's 'performance' in the sense of improvement in whatever position it is that you've been performing in to acquire the knowledge in the first place. But… not sure.

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Memorable learning experiences...

I’ve struggled to find a memorable learning experience for the activity in the "Learning Theories" section of Module 1… and I’m not sure why because if one thing’s for sure, I’ve certainly had enough of them. It was much easier to come up with one which was memorable because it was negative than the many, many experiences that were positive. In lots of ways this is quite sobering. Do your job as you’re meant to – and unless it’s absolutely exceptional, people forget. Have an off day – and it’s remembered, and remembered and remembered! However, your off day can be a powerful tool if it's reflected on and used in a positive way by those affected. Hmmmm...

The future as we know it...

KurzweilAI.net: "The Computer as a Communication Device
by J.C.R. Licklider
Robert Taylor

This landmark 1968 essay foresaw many future computer applications and advances in communication technology, such as distributed information resources and online interactive communities that are commonplace today as Internet chat rooms and peer-to-peer applications."


Terrific article from J.C.R. Licklider. At once hopelessly utopian ("unemployment would disappear from the face of the earth") and incredibly insightful ("Will "to be on line" be a privilege or a right? If only a favored segment of the population gets a chance to enjoy the advantage of "intelligence amplification," the network may exaggerate the discontinuity in the spectrum of intellectual opportunity"). Thought-provoking and interesting beyond the normal 'everyone will be flying round in spacerockets' predictions of the future!

Definitely worth a read!

PS And also hooray for Twitter where I picked up the link off someone's 'tweet'. I may hate the lingo which goes along with 'twittering'... but it's already starting to show its worth

Monday, February 11, 2008

Where do the educators fit in?

Just read the second chapter of Manuel Castells 'Internet Galaxy' and I really don't know where the educational technologists / those using technology in education fit in to his picture.  Are they part of the techno-meritocracy?  Nope.  Are they hackers - well, not in the sense he describes.  If you change his definition from "the ability to create technology (coming from any context), and to share it with the community" (Castells, p.60) to "the ability to define uses for technology (coming from any context), and to share it with the learning community" then maybe we're getting somewhere.  But it's tenuous.  What about 'virtual communitarians'?  Is that where educational technologists lie?  Well, the main stumbling block comes from the point at which he says that this group "used it for their social life, rather than practicing technology for the sake of technology" (Castells, p.61) - I don't agree that educational technologists use it for their 'social life'.  Sure, there's a strong social element and any successful implementation of technology in education will, in my opinion, have a social element.  I think that one ideal is for learning communities to exist no matter what the context... but... there's still that element of 'play' and exploration which comes from being interested in educational technology.  Of wanting to find new technologies.  Push the boundaries with what they can do.  Adapt.  Apply.  Adopt... or not.  Last group - the entrepreneurs.  Just don't see the fit there at all.

So, what is it?  Is he right that there are only four groups of internet culture?  Or are there simply too many shades of grey.  Too many examples which don't fit the mould for his groupings to be that helpful?  Surely the open culture of the internet means that the boundaries between groups are also necessarily 'open' - and intermingling and structured definitions become increasingly difficult.  I don't know if his definitions are that helpful, and his conclusion makes some sweeping generalisations about its cultural make-up which further muddies the waters:

"The culture of the Internet is a culture made up of a technocratic belief in the progress of humans through technology, enacted by communities of hackers thriving on free and open technological creativity, and materialized by money-driven entrepreneurs into the workings of the new economy" (Castells, p.61).

I guess it got me thinking at least!

Thursday, February 7, 2008

General twitterings...

Grief, I really am becoming a Twitter bore... but anyhoo... here is my quick an' dirty list of things which make Twitter slightly less annoying than sitting in the front of the class whilst everyone behind you passes notes and whispers whilst you can't follow what they're saying...

1. Use a browser like Flock which has a built in facility to display and update Twitter in a handy dandy little sidebar
2. Try a desktop client which can sit happily in the background and colour codes entries so you can follow what's headed your way and what's just 'blah'. Twhirl seems to be a goody for doing just this!
3. Find some people to follow who actually have something you might find worthwhile reading. Tweetscan can find entries by keyword - and it's always worth bunging in any old terms to see who's moaning about their boss / work for a laugh. :o)
4. Learn the lingo. There are certain features which will make using Twitter make more sense. The '@' function is one of them... and other useful ones are tucked away and listed as being Twitter nanoformats - yes, it's mildly geeky, but worth a look if you're shy of something to do for a few milliseconds.
5. Look at the alternatives - Pownce, Jaiku, even Facebook status updates... see what else is out there and do a little comparing an' contrasting. The simplicity of Twitter is strangely refreshing.
6. Toddle back to Twitter and decide to find out what other people are saying about it. Web 2.0 Teaching tools entry on Twitter is a great place to start looking if you're interested in using it in education... and then have a wander through the links they suggest. It'll get you thinking at any rate!

Twitter. Not sure. Use it with Flock and Twhirl and see what you think!

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

General twittering

This week, I will mostly be trying to get my head round the capabilities of Twitter... and the jury is not quite delivering the strongly negative reaction I've given it in the past, but there's a nagging little voice that won't stop badgering me about the issue of identity and social networking tools...

There seems to be an inherent inflexibility in all of these forms of social networking that they're unable to cope with the niches we create in our own lives. Twitter becomes a little like doing a loud stage whisper about something you're up to - letting those people you want to know, know... and letting those people you actually don't want to know, know too! It's all or nothing. There's no grouping in these things which adequately accommodates the complexity of our messy relationships.

Is everyone destined to become a bland, middle-of-the-road version of themselves for fear of offending someone / some future useful contact / future employer / a.n.other?! Is that where life in the connected world is taking us? I can think of several really useful functions for lots of different web2.0 tools... but... I wonder if in our rush to explore and use these tools during the early days, that we're not risking missing some important functions because they don't yet allow us the subtlety we need?

Monday, February 4, 2008

Twitter?

Hmmmm... still not convinced.  I've started to use Twitter a little more... but in no more meaningful way than the trite head-emptying involved in updating my status on Facebook.  I get the idea of building community, but I don't get the idea that building community means I need to know that someone has just put the kettle on or that I let people know I'm off to bed.  I suppose that my perspective would be different if I were actively using it in my work, within a small group - but it seems so unsubtle.  You update it, or you don't.  You follow someone or you don't.  You have a limited number of characters so whilst you might say 'ah, but it fosters concise writing', it might also be said to foster trivial writing.  What is there of real community building worth that can be said in 140 characters?  That couldn't be found in Facebook / MySpace with their additional features...

As I say, I remain to be convinced...