So i'm basically trying to give people something they can work with… a strategy rather than content… that can get them 'in the know' so that they can participate in the community effectively.
Competency-Based Education appeals to me because it seems easier for the teacher to be the facilitator/guide if not also responsible for the assessing/grading. Can it lead to independent learning?
It appeals to me too...I wonder why same person facilitating as assessing is rarely thought of as a conflict of interest. It's not impossible but can challenge impartiality
Introductionabout cheating, but the sources of images are not in the page, is that cheating? Rules and rules, all about assessment, not about learning?
I'll preface with Stephen Downes's commentary in Feb 14 OLDaily. His question about what kind of undergraduate degree is needed for today and the future and how we might best prepare students has #rhizo14 all over it ;-)
This came out about a month ago but according to my logs I haven't mentioned here yet, so here goes. First, let me quote Laurillard's five myths:
the idea that 'content is free' in education
that students can support each other
that Moocs solve the problem of expensive undergraduate education
that MOOCs address educational scarcity in emerging economies
that Education is a mass customer industry
The essence of her criticism is that "a course format that copes with large numbers by relying on peer support and assessment is not an undergraduate education... it requires personalised guidance, which is simply not scalable in the same way."
I think we both agree that MOOCs - even cMOOCs - are not an undergraduate education. The question, though, is broader. Is an undergraduate education what we need in order to meet the social and economic challenges of the day? If we started our students off differently, could they succeed in a technology-rich environment wihtout the need for so much personal attention and hand-holding? A lot rides on the answer to this question. And the MOOC - even the xMOOC - is an attempt to look at some possible answers.
I am curious if this newness is freeing or is it constricting? Can you try new things or are you expected to toe the line? I suppose it depends on the "boss man" in charge.
Well, a mixture really. It is 'my' course but that doesn't mean it is always viewed that way by those upstairs - this is a very small unit and can be claustrophobic at times. Dealing with a bit of a culture of talking the talk but not necessarily walking the walk. If you get what I mean. It depends how assertive I wish to be.
My recent engagement with digital scholarship and #connectedlearning has propelled me to consider other options, and to think about how I might hack my own course, hybridise it.
This is the heart of all this connected work ... how do we bring our explorations of learning in online spaces and adventures back into the classroom (unless you teach online courses, of course).
I like this phrasing and the idea here ... of shifting the learning, as long as you don't focus on the tool/technology but on the learnings elements. Sometimes, the tech drives the learning, not the other way around. We want our students to have agency of exploration in their learning.
This year we used the closed box of the institutional VLE to do some of this work but I want to push this further by using more open platforms and ask participants to find their own materials. The assessment will have to be tweaked to facilitate this.
have shorter workshops that model many of the ideas we promote
This might up the engagement factor. I think a few folks from Connected Courses are tinkering with collective design of curriculum, right? Of allowing students to have a say in the learning. This is what Dave is doing with us. I think.
The 'time' allocated to 'teaching' sessions is driven by the Bologna process (Tuning in N.America) and 'European Credit and Accumulation Transfer System' which usually gets reduced to 'time on task' rather than learning. We can play with this though
Emergent objectives could become points for reflecting on what the course should be dealing with, what the difficult ideas and issues are, and therefore the content required.
I am after all a final arbiter, the one who, institutionally, is responsible for assessment
Though these are not part of the course content, do not appear on the syllabus, and will not be assessed, they are more important than the course content.
Education is training for life, not just a career, and certainly not just a job upon graduation.
About teaching and learning to be rather than learning to know.
You could open this link and highlight annotate this paper with us. You need to download a little app for that: see https://www.diigo.com/tools
I bet you do know how to foster this. In social capital theory they describe two ways of connecting that we all use--bridging (across groups) and bonding (within groups). All of this is part of a larger tool-reciprocation.
In fact annotating and sharing this is a way to reinforce both your independent stance and your interdependent connections. It is like Mrs. Malaprop discovered: she has been speaking dialogue here entire life. I think we all are doing this dance of independence and interdependence all the time.
the idea of 'minimal necessary scaffolding' is so important here. Have you read Myles Horton's The Long Haul. He addresses this question over and over.
because nothing essentially assessable or measurable needs to result from their learning
Even worse control because it becomes internalized,
None of the issues of pre-requisites and order of learning and institutional imperatives matters if we put the power in the heart of the learner. After that 'engine' is started all of the world becomes fuel whether it is credentialing, certification, accrediting--it doesn't matter. It is all grist for each unique learning soul to turn into her or his own bread.
Education is expensive, online courses are cheaper. Online courses engage people from all ages, they foster life-long-learning. Online courses are a means to make schools change. If schools do not change they will suffer and go down.
I am glad Susan brought this definition up. I was going to search it out. The "subjective reality" hits a nerve with me. I am thinking of not just my own bias but what I bring to the table and intend to take away from the table. I am an active participant.
Pretty strong language here .. I am thinking how the remix culture might be considered subversive in this context, using a different (subjective) view to understand a learning environment.
Thank you for this. Here is the crux of how I think about subjective thinking ... tossed into the subjunctive salad bowl. Or have I been mistaken in my own beliefs about what subjective is?
how our "design" is experienced by any one learner is as unique as a fingerprint, and impeded upon by the scars we have collected throughout our coarses and courses and curses.
For good and for bad .... it could be that we are shaped by the positive energy and the positive experiences. I am thinking of being part of networks liked CLMOOC and DS106 and Connected Courses ... those shape my expectations of what a course should look like these days.
OMG. I had a ball with this. I think I failed. I think I passed. I think I succeeded. I think I thought .... "Thank God, I have people like Susan to lead me astray."
This line between subjective and objective is both intriguing and confusing (for me, anyway). This post by Susan really helped clarify some of the ideas. My annotations are my way of interacting with her text.
Kevin, I've been doing the subjective learning thing on my own for a very, very long time. Not coming to Vance Steven's multiliteracies, connectivist moocs or any open online courses as a "practicing" academic or educator (except in free range, heutagogical sense), I start with making my own subjectivity alignment -- if only to feel at least somewhat less the total outlier.
Besides, isn't all learning is idiosyncratic and subjective?