Skip to main content

Home/ change11/ Group items tagged taxonomy

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Lone Guldbrandt Tønnesen

Stanford's open courses raise questions about true value of elite education | Inside Hi... - 4 views

www.insidehighered.com/...out-true-value-elite-education

Change11 stanford courses MOOC

shared by Lone Guldbrandt Tønnesen on 15 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • Search form |  Follow us: Get Daily E-mail Thursday, December 15, 2011 Home NewsAssessment and Accountability Health Professions Retirement Issues Students and Violence Surveys Technology Adjuncts Admissions Books and Publishing Community Colleges Diversity For-Profit Higher Ed International Religious Colleges Student Aid and Loans Teaching and Learning ViewsIntellectual Affairs The Devil's Workshop Technology Blog UAlma Mater College Ready Writing menu-3276 menu-path-taxonomy-term-835 od
  • This made Stanford the latest of a handful of elite American universities to pull back the curtain on their vaunted courses, joining the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s OpenCourseWare project, Yale University’s Open Yale Courses and the University of California at Berkeley’s Webcast.Berkeley, among others. The difference with the Stanford experiment is that students are not only able to view the course materials and tune into recorded lectures for CS221: Introduction to Artificial Intelligence; they are also invited to take in-class quizzes, submit homework assignments, and gather for virtual office hours with the course’s two rock star instructors — Peter Norvig, a research executive at Google who used to build robots for NASA, and Sebastian Thrun, a professor of computer science at Stanford who also works for Google, designing cars that drive themselves. (M.I.T., Yale and Berkeley simply make the course materials freely available, without offering the opportunity to interact with the professors or submit assignments to be graded.)
  • MOOCs question the value of teaching as an economic value point.”
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • Based on the success of Norvig and Thrun’s experiment, the university’s computer science department is planning to broadcast eight additional courses for free in the spring, most focusing on high-level concepts that require participants already to have a pretty good command of math and science.
  • It raises the question: Whose certification matters, for what purposes?
  • For one, the professors can only evaluate non-enrolled students via assessments that can be graded automatically.
  • it can be difficult to assess skills without being able to administer project-based assignments
  • With a player like Stanford doing something like this, they’re bringing attention to the possibilities of the Web for expanding open education
Allan Quartly

educational-origami - home - 10 views

edorigami.wikispaces.com

#change11 education technology learning web2.0 wiki resources e-learning Bloom taxonomy digital change11

shared by Allan Quartly on 24 Sep 11 - Cached
tatiluna liked it
  • Allan Quartly on 24 Sep 11
     
    Wiki covering Bloom's Digital Taxonomy.
  • Pip Cleaves on 29 Sep 11
     
    You might also like this Bloom's Digital Taxonomy and Web Tools Poster: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12784871/Bloom%27s%20Digital%20Taxonomy%20and%20Web%202%20Tools%20Poster.pdf It is important to me that we ensure the 'crete' level is not a tiny triangle, but a large box. Creation is an important part of 21stC Skill aquisition.
Allan Quartly

FlipSnack | WebTool Mashup - 0 views

www.flipsnack.com/...73404e7215c7c7f4e6ae096q372043

change11 blooms mashup web2.0 Intelligences technology

shared by Allan Quartly on 09 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • Allan Quartly on 09 Oct 11
     
    Blooms Taxonomy vs Intelligences - in a mashup of Web 2.0
tim mcnamara

1.1. Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaph... - 9 views

reusability.org/...wiley.doc

learningobjects delicious-1011 #change11

shared by tim mcnamara on 12 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • The purpose of this chapter is to introduce an instructional technology concept known commonly as the “learning object.” First a review of the literature is presented as groundwork for a working definition of the term “learning object.” A brief discussion of instructional design theory is followed by an attempt to connect the learning objects approach to existing instructional design theory, and the general lack of such connective efforts is contrasted with the financial and technical activity generated by the learning objects notion.
  • What is a learning object?
  • An instructional technology called “learning objects” (LTSC, 2000a) currently leads other candidates for the position of technology of choice in the next generation of instructional design, development, and delivery, due to its potential for reusability, generativity, adaptability, and scalability (Hodgins, 2000; Urdan & Weggen, 2000; Gibbons, Nelson, & Richards, 2000).
  • ...48 more annotations...
  • grounded in the object-oriented paradigm of computer science.
  • build small (relative to the size of an entire course) instructional components that can be reused a number of times in different learning contexts
  • Moreover, those who incorporate learning objects can collaborate on and benefit immediately from new versions. These are significant differences between learning objects and other instructional media that have existed previously.
  • Supporting the notion of small, reusable chunks of instructional media, Reigeluth and Nelson (1997) suggest that when teachers first gain access to instructional materials, they often break the materials down into their constituent parts.
  • if instructors received instructional resources as individual components, this initial step of decomposition could be bypassed
  • The Learning Technology Standards Committee chose the term “learning objects” (possibly from Wayne Hodgins’ 1994 use of the term in the title of the CedMA working group called “Learning Architectures, API’s, and Learning Objects”)
  • provided a working definition
  • Learning Objects are defined here as any entity, digital or non-digital, which can be used, re-used or referenced during technology supported learning. Examples of technology-supported learning include computer-based training systems, interactive learning environments, intelligent computer-aided instruction systems, distance learning systems, and collaborative learning environments. Examples of Learning Objects include multimedia content, instructional content, learning objectives, instructional software and software tools, and persons, organizations, or events referenced during technology supported learning (LOM, 2000).
  • The proliferation of definitions for the term “learning object” makes communication confusing and difficult.
  • It would seem that there are almost as many definitions of the term as there are people employing it.
  • In addition to the various definitions of the term “learning object,” other terms that imply the general intention to take an object-oriented approach to computer-assisted instruction confuse the issue further.
  • Depressingly, while each of these is something different, they all conform to the Learning Technology Standards Committee’s  “learning object” definition. An in depth discussion of the precise meanings of each of these terms would not add to the main point of this discussion: the field is still struggling to come to grips with the question, “What is a learning object?”
  • At the same time, the creation of yet another term only seems to add to the confusion. While the creation of a satisfactory definition of the term learning object will probably consume the better part of the author’s career, a working definition must be presented before the discussion can proceed.
  • Therefore, this chapter will define a learning object as “any digital resource that can be reused to support learning.”
  • This definition includes anything that can be delivered across the network on demand, be it large or small.
  • This definition of learning object, “any digital resource that can be reused to support learning,” is proposed for two reasons.
  • The definition adopted for this chapter emphasizes the purposeful use (by either an instructional designer, an instructor, or a student) of these objects to support learning
  • Second, the proposed definition is based on the LTSC definition (and defines a proper subset of learning objects as defined by the LTSC), making issues of compatibility of learning object as defined within this chapter and learning object as defined by the LTSC explicit
  • With that compatibility made explicit, the proposed definition differs from the LTSC definition in two important ways.
  • First, the definition explicitly rejects non-digital
  • The definition also drops the phrase "technology supported" which is now implicit, because all learning objects are digital.
  • Second, the phrase "to support" has been substituted in place of "during" in the LTSC definition. Use of an object "during" learning doesn't connect its use to learning
  • First, the definition is sufficiently narrow to define a reasonably homogeneous set of things: reusable digital resources. At the same time, the definition is broad enough to include the estimated 15 terabytes of information available on the publicly accessible Internet (Internet Newsroom, 1999).
  • Armed with a working definition of the term learning object, the discussion of the instructional use of learning objects can proceed.
  • Instructional design theory and learning objects
  • Reigeluth
  • [I]nstructional design theories are design oriented, they describe methods of instruction and the situations in which those methods should be used, the methods can be broken into simpler component methods, and the methods are probabilistic. (p. 7).s11 {margin-left:0; line-height:2.400000; text-indent:36;}
  • Because the very definition of “theory” in some fields is “descriptive,” design theories are commonly confused with other types of theories that they are not, including learning theory and curriculum theory (Reigeluth, 1999a).
  • The following discussion takes a step in this direction, by recasting two of the largest issues in the learning objects area – combination and granularity – in instructional design terms
  • Combination
  • there is astonishingly little conversation around the instructional design implications of learning objects.
  • item (d) in the Learning Objects Metadata Working Group’s PAR (LOM, 2000) reads as follows:
  • To enable computer agents to automatically and dynamically compose personalized lessons for an individual learner
  • at this point a brief discussion of metadata, the focus of the Learning Object Metadata Working Group’s efforts, is necessary.
  • Metadata, literally “data about data,” is descriptive information about a resource
  • he Learning Objects Metadata Working Group is working to create metadata for learning objects (such as Title, Author, Version, Format, etc.) so that people and computers will be able to find objects by searching
  • ​The problem with 7(d) arose when people began to actually consider what it meant for a computer to “automatically and dynamically compose personalized lessons.”
  • his meant taking individual learning objects and combining them in a way that made instructional sense, or in instructional design terminology, “sequencing” the learning objects.
  • The problem was that no instructional design information was included in the metadata specified by the current version of the Learning Objects Metadata Working Group standard.
  • ​The lack of instructional design discussion at this standards-setting level of conversation about learning objects is disturbing, because it might indicate a trend.
  • Once technology or software that does not support an instructionally-grounded approach to learning object sequencing is completed and shipped to the average teacher, why would he or she respond any differently
  • Wiley (1999) called this “the new CAI – ‘Clip Art Instruction’” (p. 6).
  • Discussion of the problem of combining learning objects in terms of “sequencing” leads to another connection between learning objects and instructional design theory.
  • Granularity
  • The most difficult problem facing the designers of learning objects is that of “granularity” (Wiley, et al., 1999).
  • How big should a learning object be?
  • Reuse is the core of the learning object notion, as generativity, adaptivity, and other –ivities are all facilitated by the property of reuse.
  • designating every individual graphic and paragraph of text within a curriculum a “learning object” can be prohibitively expensive
  • tim mcnamara on 12 Oct 11
     
    Chapter 1
1 - 10 of 10
Showing 20▼ items per page