Group items tagged

A history of technology-mediated learning The following is a section from my PhD thesis. It is part of the "Past Experience" section of the Ps Framework. It aims to give a potted history of technology-mediated learning and show how it connects with e-learning. Since these terms are somewhat overused, it starts with some definitions. The plan is that this history will be used to identify lessons from history, which e-learning (generally) hasn't learned. I've been working on this for at least a month. I have been doing other work on the thesis, but the fact that this has take soooo long is not all the heartening. I think perhaps may sights are set a little high. The alternatives are that I'm either a crap writer or I'm currently not in the mood to write. We'll see where we go from here. The following has not been proof-read thoroughly. I'm leaving that for a later task. If you have any suggestions for improvement, fire away.

Edupunk rules: Technology I, II and 3 - understanding and improving the practice of instructional technology The following is a summary and perhaps a bit of a reflection on McDonald and Gibbons (nd). This is a journal article that has been accepted, but not yet officially published. It appears to be based on the PhD thesis of McDonald. The paper uses the criteria of technology I, II and III to examine differences between researchers description of a theory and how practitioners implement it. This identifies 3 reasons for technological gravity and 3 approaches to avoid it.

By a "research talk" we mean a presentation of 30-60 minutes, given to a group of people who are motivated and intelligent, but who may not know much about your particular area. The paper is heavily on our personal experience of giving talks in the area of Computing Science. What we have to say is quite different from what business people are often taught, but perhaps that's due mainly to a difference in the style of presentation needed for technical material. Papers like this one often tend to consist mainly of "motherhood" statements, with which nobody could possibly disagree (such as "prepare well"), and thereby end up with little real punch. We have tried to avoid this, partly by deliberately overstating some things (the title, for example) in order to make our points more vividly. We make no claim to have all the answers; rather, we have simply tried to write down suggestions which have worked for us in the hope that they may be useful to you. Everyone is different, so take what is useful for you, and ignore the rest.

Writing a good research grant proposal is not easy. This document is an attempt to collect together a number of suggestions about what makes a good proposal. It is inevitably a personal view on the part of the authors; we would welcome feedback and suggestions from others. APPROACHING A PROPOSAL The first and most obvious thing to do is to read the advice offered by your funding agency. In the case of EPSRC, the primary funding body for computing science research, there is a "Guide to EPSRC Research Grants". We make no attempt to duplicate the material in the EPSRC guide or any other; you must get yourself a copy and follow the guidance closely. The most substantial part of any grant application is some form of "Case for Support". It is this case which will persuade, or fail to persuade, your funding body of the value of your proposal. Proposals range very widely indeed in their quality. You can improve your chances enormously simply by ruthlessly writing and rewriting. This document is entirely about improving your case for support.

I'm a pre-tenure professor and the father of a special needs child. My last year in grad school, I was trying to write my dissertation, hunt for academic jobs and work on two start-ups. Wasting time hasn't been something I could afford to do for a long time. Read on below for a write-up of the time-saving tips and tricks I've accumulated over the last few years. If you have tips of your own, please send them my way!