Digital Natives
The above is a little quiz I set up as part of an exercise in creating learning objects. Would be interested if anybody fancied having a go and giving me feedback! It's totally non-scientific... but may or may not be revealing!
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Saturday, March 15, 2008
RIP-ping on Learning Objects
iterating toward openness - RIP-ping on Learning Objects: "I’ve been saying that the idea of LEGO-like assembly of resources simply will not work from a learning perspective. The role of context is simply too great in learning, and the expectation that any educational resource could be reused without some contextual tweaking was either naive or stupid. I will here attribute learning objects’ inability to live up to the incredible hype and investment they received to the fact that the premise of the possibility of simple reuse was simply wrong."
My initial reaction to learning objects is the above. I have to say I'm not 100% keen on this idea of a lot of independent piecemeal learning. It seems to me to be about benefitting the provider of the material and not the student. Where's the scaffolding if you don't allow the learner a sense of building towards an understanding. Their own contextual, constructed understanding - sure - but still within the bounds of some kind of structure. How can we assume that we're all speaking the same language if we don't tread the same route at least to a degree?
I don't know. Learning objects do have a very 'Lego' feel about them....
My initial reaction to learning objects is the above. I have to say I'm not 100% keen on this idea of a lot of independent piecemeal learning. It seems to me to be about benefitting the provider of the material and not the student. Where's the scaffolding if you don't allow the learner a sense of building towards an understanding. Their own contextual, constructed understanding - sure - but still within the bounds of some kind of structure. How can we assume that we're all speaking the same language if we don't tread the same route at least to a degree?
I don't know. Learning objects do have a very 'Lego' feel about them....
Friday, March 7, 2008
What's del.icio.us today...
| Links for 2008-03-05 [del.icio.us] Posted: 06 Mar 2008 12:00 AM CST
|
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Twitter in plain English-ish
Twitter in Plain English:
Not sure what I make of this video to be honest. It does touch on some of the stuff Twitter can do, but it doesn't make it a 'killer app' (busily crosses self for using geek speak in public). There's nothing about sharing resources. Sharing news. Connecting with colleagues. Tagging of entries. Discovering others who have similar interests etc. Sounds mildly socially interesting... but a little bit sad from this description and it's probably the understanding I had of it about a year ago too. The 'why on earth would I want to tell everyone I was drinking tea, they know I've got to be drinking something' disbelief that it could be of any real use to anyone.
Anyhoo, worth a look for an introductory gambol around the delights of Twitter.
Not sure what I make of this video to be honest. It does touch on some of the stuff Twitter can do, but it doesn't make it a 'killer app' (busily crosses self for using geek speak in public). There's nothing about sharing resources. Sharing news. Connecting with colleagues. Tagging of entries. Discovering others who have similar interests etc. Sounds mildly socially interesting... but a little bit sad from this description and it's probably the understanding I had of it about a year ago too. The 'why on earth would I want to tell everyone I was drinking tea, they know I've got to be drinking something' disbelief that it could be of any real use to anyone.
Anyhoo, worth a look for an introductory gambol around the delights of Twitter.
The connected document
H806-08: The connected document [link to password protected site]:
Reflection
"Once you have produced your connected document, you should reflect upon the following questions:"
* Was the time allocated sufficient? Did you produce a completed document? If the time had been doubled, would you have been able to produce a document that was twice as good?
For me, I don't think the time allocated was sufficient, but I think that's due to my tendency to procrastinate and not use the time efficiently. I had too many questions to ask and I feel more comfortable writing about a subject if I have a proper understanding of it, rather than a superficial skim read of several links. I tried to have a systematic approach to finding links but I felt a bit panicked by the time limit imposed and ended up getting distracted and not being focussed enough.
I didn't produce a completed document, mainly because by just finding links I wasn't really engaging with the topic so by the end of it I just wasn't interested enough to maintain enthusiasm for it. I'd have preferred to have written my own version and included references at the end for people to follow up rather than not properly understanding it and padding with links throughout. It was an 'okay' experience, but doubling the time wouldn't have made it any more real or engaging for me. As a means of producing material for others - yes, it was alright. As a means of producing understanding in myself - pretty poor.
* Do you feel that you have gained a good understanding of the topic area? Do you feel as though you could converse about the area with some confidence, or do you think that you have only gained a superficial understanding?
I think I've got a good overview of the topic, but ask me anything of depth and I'd have to go back to the articles I sourced. I tried to skim as many 'good' sources as I could in the time allocated... but in trying to verify and gain reliable sources to connect to, I felt that I couldn't really read any of them properly. Less is more and a further step in which time was given to re-filtering the materials sourced and gaining a deeper understanding would have been better - for me at least.
* How does this way of working compare with a more traditional approach to information sources and documents?
I didn't particularly enjoy it. I can see it might save time if the aim was just to produce a briefing document for someone else and not to enhance your own understanding. But, it felt functional and not fun as far as I was concerned. I like to be able to relate what I'm reading to my life, my context. This didn't do that. Dull. Dull. Dull.
* Given your experience in this activity and in working with the internet in general, do you believe that overall connectivity increases time pressures or decreases them? Are there other working methods and approaches you can think of that might help reduce time pressures?
I think that overall, connectivity can increase time pressures if it isn't managed effectively. Too much information can be worse than too little. Trying to include too many links can make learning a shallow experience. It might reduce time pressures if this were a rushed piece of work - but for me, that's all it would do. It didn't work as an experience and I didn't really enjoy it.
Other working methods or approaches to reduce time pressures? Probably things like spray diagramming, brainstorming, asking myself a pertinent question, thinking about other experiences I've had and moulding my answer to them. At least those methods would make the writing process feel more natural than something as stilted as this. If time pressures are such that learning is compromised in this way, then I would have to question whether the time allocated was correct in the first place.
This experience goes on my 'could do if I had to, but wouldn't necessarily want to' pile.
Reflection
"Once you have produced your connected document, you should reflect upon the following questions:"
* Was the time allocated sufficient? Did you produce a completed document? If the time had been doubled, would you have been able to produce a document that was twice as good?
For me, I don't think the time allocated was sufficient, but I think that's due to my tendency to procrastinate and not use the time efficiently. I had too many questions to ask and I feel more comfortable writing about a subject if I have a proper understanding of it, rather than a superficial skim read of several links. I tried to have a systematic approach to finding links but I felt a bit panicked by the time limit imposed and ended up getting distracted and not being focussed enough.
I didn't produce a completed document, mainly because by just finding links I wasn't really engaging with the topic so by the end of it I just wasn't interested enough to maintain enthusiasm for it. I'd have preferred to have written my own version and included references at the end for people to follow up rather than not properly understanding it and padding with links throughout. It was an 'okay' experience, but doubling the time wouldn't have made it any more real or engaging for me. As a means of producing material for others - yes, it was alright. As a means of producing understanding in myself - pretty poor.
* Do you feel that you have gained a good understanding of the topic area? Do you feel as though you could converse about the area with some confidence, or do you think that you have only gained a superficial understanding?
I think I've got a good overview of the topic, but ask me anything of depth and I'd have to go back to the articles I sourced. I tried to skim as many 'good' sources as I could in the time allocated... but in trying to verify and gain reliable sources to connect to, I felt that I couldn't really read any of them properly. Less is more and a further step in which time was given to re-filtering the materials sourced and gaining a deeper understanding would have been better - for me at least.
* How does this way of working compare with a more traditional approach to information sources and documents?
I didn't particularly enjoy it. I can see it might save time if the aim was just to produce a briefing document for someone else and not to enhance your own understanding. But, it felt functional and not fun as far as I was concerned. I like to be able to relate what I'm reading to my life, my context. This didn't do that. Dull. Dull. Dull.
* Given your experience in this activity and in working with the internet in general, do you believe that overall connectivity increases time pressures or decreases them? Are there other working methods and approaches you can think of that might help reduce time pressures?
I think that overall, connectivity can increase time pressures if it isn't managed effectively. Too much information can be worse than too little. Trying to include too many links can make learning a shallow experience. It might reduce time pressures if this were a rushed piece of work - but for me, that's all it would do. It didn't work as an experience and I didn't really enjoy it.
Other working methods or approaches to reduce time pressures? Probably things like spray diagramming, brainstorming, asking myself a pertinent question, thinking about other experiences I've had and moulding my answer to them. At least those methods would make the writing process feel more natural than something as stilted as this. If time pressures are such that learning is compromised in this way, then I would have to question whether the time allocated was correct in the first place.
This experience goes on my 'could do if I had to, but wouldn't necessarily want to' pile.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
What's del.icio.us today...
| Links for 2008-03-03 [del.icio.us] Posted: 04 Mar 2008 12:00 AM CST
|
Saturday, March 1, 2008
What's del.icio.us today...
| Links for 2008-02-28 [del.icio.us] Posted: 29 Feb 2008 12:00 AM CST
|
Friday, February 29, 2008
The Advantages of Closing a Few Doors
From the New York Times:
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!!
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.
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?
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
|
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...
| Links for 2008-02-18 [del.icio.us] Posted: 19 Feb 2008 12:00 AM CST
|
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Felder Silverman Learning Model test
Your ScoreComment:
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.
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)
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)