Group items tagged

From this, I have learnt that it is perfectly fine to change your mind, as long as you have solid justification. This was also a useful reminder abot the importance of accurately matching the number of objectives with activities. A designer needs to avoid creating an objective that has no activity, and an activity with no objective, as can sometimes happen through oversight.

“You need to rethink lots of things, to be open to possibilities, opportunities to options, then you’re more likely to be successful,” says Alex. This kind of openness does not happen as a matter of course. It has to begin with an awareness. This attitude of being open to possibilities, opportunities and options has to be actively worked upon. I failed to understand this at first. So I found it perplexing that Alex would pursue what I thought was a trivial line of discussion. What do you think is not possible to teach and learn online? I volunteered several bright contributions. I was still unaware of the purpose of this apparently innocuous discussion. Of course now I know better. That discussion was supposed to challenge a closed mind. Because with a closed mind, we render ourselves unable to be open to possibilities, opportunities to options. A closed mind works against innovation, progress, improvement, expansion. This is a new frontier, and therefore the stance which can reap untold benefits and leanings should be “Let’s explore!” So the question we should be asking isn’t “What cannot be done?” but rather “How do I make this possible?”

I was therefore quite relieved Alex confirmed what I had feared. I was packing in too much. Even before even before Alex provided her completely justified feedback that my course was too packed (“for you Joy, less is more!”)

An online environment is different from a f2f setting. Being able to state it in a theoretical way is not the same as understanding it and translating it into practice. Of course I knew the theory. But when the time came for application in the design of the online course, my knowledge did not transfer well into practical application. This is one of the main problems when there is a failure of the student to  successfully transfer learning, which is basically one of great challenges of teaching.  So basically, what I did initially did was to replicate my f2f activities directly into my online classroom.

As I feared, and Alex confirmed, this large amount of group work puts a strain on the students and also poses too many logistic difficulties. Perhaps one or two group work activities might work, but not several in each module. It is unrealistic. So I have learnt, in a very concrete and hands-on way, that designing for my online classroom in this instance is different from designing for my face-to face classroom.

Once again, I am reminded that theory and practice need mutual reinforcement. Understanding the theory is one thing. Transferring the theoretical knowledge into action requires experience, reflection, and feedback from others.

In short – let the students do the work. This is the best way to learn. This principle, I think, has been demonstrated in this course. And I intend to pursue it in my own course. I see the value of giving the students both structure and space.

Alley and Jansak (2001) have also identified 10 keys to quality online learning. The authors suggested that online courses will be high quality when they are student-centered and when: Knowledge is constructed, not transmitted. Students can take full responsibility for their own learning. Students are motivated to want to learn. The course provides “mental white space” for reflection. Learning activities appropriately match student learning styles. Experiential, active learning augments the Web site learning environment, Solitary and interpersonal learning activities are interspersed. Inaccurate prior learning is identified and corrected. “Spiral learning” provides for revisiting and expanding prior lessons, The master teacher is able to guide the overall learning process. (p. 6-17)

The students in one classroom are prompted to recall facts and procedures while the students in the other classroom are encouraged to apply their learned knowledge to solve complex problems featuring real-world relevance.

Through his work with the business community, he has learned that there is no shortage of employees that are technically proficient, but too few employees that can adequately communicate and collaborate, innovate and think critically. So, rather than simply equating 21st century skills with technical prowess, educators need to expand their understanding of such skills to increasingly emphasize preparing students to think on their feet, communicate effectively and value the ideas of others.

The depth-of-knowledge levels of Norman Webb’s depthof-knowledge (DOK) levels constitute a system that addresses how to teach these skills. Depth of knowledge is a scale of cognitive demand that reflects the complexity of activities that teachers ask students to perform. DOK-1. Recall — Recall or recognition of a fact, information, concept, or procedure DOK-2. Basic Application of Skill/Concept — Use of information, conceptual knowledge, follow or select appropriate procedures, two or more steps with decision points along the way, routine problems, organize/ display data DOK-3. Strategic Thinking — Requires reasoning, developing a plan or sequence of steps to approach problem; requires some decision making and justification; abstract and complex; often more than one possible answer DOK-4. Extended Thinking — An investigation or application to real world; requires time to research, think, and process multiple conditions of the problem or task; non-routine manipulations, across disciplines/content areas/multiple sources Level 1 of DOK is the lowest level and requires students to recall or perform a simple process.As DOK increases toward the highest (fourth) level, the complexity of the activity moves from simple recall problems to increasingly difficult and teacher independent problem-solving classroom activities, as well as real-world applications.As students are prompted to work within the realms of higher DOK levels, they will learn to independently employ higher-level thinking skills.

By that I mean it keeps me thinking. I wake up in the middle of the night and wonder on it, it makes me uncomfortable, and it appears on my to-do list in the strangest way. One thing I think of is the idea of student-centered learning. Its not that this is new to me entirely, but it has been a bit of a shocker to learn how to do it effectively and how to readjust my thinking and teaching to make the student at the middle. The idea that my activities should be engaging has always been moderately important, but I’ve thought about it in the past as “entertaining.” I always came back to the thought that I wasn’t here to entertain my students, they get entertainment everywhere else.

The truth is, though, that it did help me to learn and it was a challenge I could meet.

not necessarily because it meets a learning objective

conceptualizing some of the activities for my course

I have been much more aware of the idea that today’s younger generations (those who are 30 and younger) are much more technologically savvy.