Recently I've been reading articles on learning gains and obstacles with different graphics types (still, video/animation, interactive, etc) and I had a thought occur to me: Why on earth do theorist and researchers feel the need to use their own terminology for everything? For example, many try to tell me that group learning is completely different from cooperative learning. Or that iterative evaluation is nowhere near the same as formative evaluation. There may be slight differences or nuances in each term, but, in essence, they are the same thing.
Now you may ask yourself: Christian, why does it matter? You might be thinking: he obviously is a beginning grad student and doesn't understand the obvious differences in [x]. Well.. that's the problem. Terminology is used to define, categorize, and communicate ideas and thoughts to others. If you are only communicating to you and your lackeys, then you have failed in your purpose as a educational professional. Sitting in your lab doing research on your pet project doesn't help anyone unless that research can help steer education towards progress or away from disaster.
If you still think that I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, then I encourage you to take a class you teach or design (or a similar class). Look around and observe the students taking the class. Talk with them and evaluate their progress. They spend the first half of the semester learning the teaching style and teacher. That means half of the class is wasted trying to get up to speed with the teacher. Then the teacher is frustrated that the learners aren't "getting it."
What if, instead, that learners when from classes in their field and had the exact same terminology. That would speed up every aspect of learning. The closest teachers come to this now is: Remember in Learning Theory when we talked about Piaget? CIP? Constructivism? PBL? Anchored Instruction? This is meant to build upon what the learner's knowledge base, but it is to late. They spent 95% of their time building a whole to base, leaving the learners to make their own connections (often times those connections lead to erroneous thought).
What do you think? Am I off-base still or should I start planning Ed-Terminology-Definition 2009? (By the way, getting researchers to agree on words is another big problem, but I'll tackle that later. Admitting you have a problem is the first step)
I'm entering in my final year of my Masters degree and suddenly I'm filling the pressures of choosing what I want to do when I grow up. This is quite challenging for me since I feel that I would like/succeed at whatever type of Inst. Tech that I embark on. Still, I'm waiting for the job posting that says, "Wanted: Someone who does everything and enjoys whatever we want him to do." Usually the job duties require specific skills or qualifications.
This leaves me with a dilemma, I'm in my last year of schooling and I need to decide in order to tailor my class schedule, internship, resume, etc. It seems like now is the perfect time to do that. However, it is harder than it seems.
There are basically four choices: 1) University, 2) Government, 3) Business, 4) K-12. If there are more, then I'd certainly like to hear about them, but these are the areas of which I'm aware. Each has fairly different pluses and minuses and I think that I'd succeed in whatever one I choose. Again, the problem is making that ultimate decision.
So I'm soliciting your help, Blog-o-sphere! I want to know your thoughts about this. Do you have experience in these sectors? Do you have great advice? Do you have any job/internships available for education/training? Anyway, help is being solicited!
"We've had all four of the major textbook publishers on campus, and all of them want to get on board because they sense that this is their General Motors moment," said Mr. Hubbard earlier this semester, when I sat down with him in his office. Like the auto giant, he said, publishers must adapt or head for bankruptcy. (4th Paragraph)
What do you think? Is this really a GM moment for them-adapt of go bankrupt. I happen to agree. I think that if the textbook publishers get on board and stop fighting progress, then college can take a step into the 20th Century .
That said, I'm would be wary if my university adopted a new Kindle-like technology that was barely in its Beta stage. I've been in too many classes where the "amazing new software" ends up being a nightmare.
Still, could you imagine paying $50/semester (or less) on books instead of $300? Plus, all your books are neatly organized on your reading device, so you don't have to carry around huge piles of verbage. That sounds amazing to me.
Anyway, I'm wondering if any of you have thoughts on this. What do you think? Is this the new wave or the next laserdisc?
My work had me put together a promotional video for a technology on campus. The most amazing thing was the I had a budget of $0 for production and editing. I think I did a good job, what say you?
Recently I've started thinking about this again. What with my Educational games class, books I've been reading, and guest lectures I've attended, it seems to come up a lot. Anyway, today I heard from the famous David Merrill about whole-task instructional and the first principles of instruction (which has spawned the first principles of motivation-awesome!) and he said something that I really liked. I don't remember the exact quote, but the gist of it was that the most motivating part of instruction aren't how fancy the handouts/multimedia are, how well the instructor demonstrates the information, or anything else; instead the most motivating part of instruction is learning. Learning! How crazy is that?
I happen to completely agree with this. One reason why is a book I've been reading called Crucial Confrontations (my bathroom reader Du Jour). The books states that if you reward people for already expected behaviors with extra things (money, candy, time off), it works for a little bit, but doesn't have a lasting effect. Instead, the task itself is the most motivating aspect. For example, I decided to try this out with my ever-difficult potty trainee that I live with. She has refused to go potty for months now and we have all but given up. We tried prizes, candy, prize, special trips, yadda yadda yadda, but nothing has worked. In fact, she completely hates the experience and has refused to even look at her potty.
Keeping in mind that the most motivating component is the the task itself, I decided a new approach. At certain times of the day I just sit on the potty next to her. She goes potty, I help her do her duty, and then I help her clean the potty and herself. That's it! No praise, external rewards, or external motivation. It has almost brought me to tears. She's done it a few times now and each time I'm amazed. I'll let you know if it continues, but so far I feel like I'm seeing a miracle.
Another example of this I've seen recently is in my education gaming class. The game designed by the previous game class was about early 20th Century poetry. It was geared towards middle school students and was created to help instruction that has 0% engagement from student previously. (In fact, when I heard the topic, my head also immediately hit my desk as I feel instantly asleep).
The point is that they didn't include all the frills of modern computer games, but instead focused on teaching the material. It was a gamble, because what if it wasn't motivation? The result was interesting: high student motivation, involvement, and learning. I don't think that you can say the game itself was the motivating factor, because student's go through a vast amount of computer games, but rarely play for more than a minute or too-unless they really enjoy them game. Also, they may have been "forced" to play the game by their instructor, but that doesn't guarantee student motivation. My teaching experience has proven to me that I can "force" students to do something, but only they can get themselves engaged and participating in their learning.
Anyway, this ramble is already long enough, but I think that this is an amazing concept: learning is the most motivation aspect of instruction.
Recently I've been thinking about entertainment and instruction. In my classes and outside research much has been made about whether or not instruction can be entertaining or not. This has been nagging at me recently and, since I have my own platform for sharing my ideas now, I thought I'd post my thoughts.
There seems to thought among educators that entertainment is nice, but has little to no instructional value. Entertainment industry professionals cite the need for "real world" attitudes about instruction. If it is not profitable or entertaining, then it is virtually useless. There seems to be a dichotomy of opinions.
In my research, and by research I mean watching "educational shows" with my children, there seems to be a wide variety of what is considered "educational." Many commercial programs are more entertaining than education, but they do have useful or interesting information. I have also seen Higher Ed products that are clear, objective-based instruction, but have no entertainment value.
Is there a correct answer? Is there a middle ground? Personally, I don't think I can answer either question with a Yes or a No. I feel that there is merit in both. When commercial entertainment provides useful information, I consider that a win. Since recent reports state that the average child watches 7 hours of TV a day, isn't a least a little redeeming value better than none. (For example, Little Einstein's has increase my children's awareness of classical art and music.)
Additionally, these programs allow educators to show how their theoretical classroom would work. In Sid the Science Kid (PBS), a discovery classroom is setup and that is how the students learn. Whether or not that classroom could ever exist in real life is another question for another day, but at least I better understand the concept of the theory.
Finally, I also see benefit in instruction that may not me entertaining. While students may not what or use this instruction everyday or week, the challenge, engagement, and potential problem-solving opportunities will be motivate the students interest. Also, having active participation in learning is almost always better. Students won't "veg out", but instead be challenged, rise, and then grow.
To sum up this rant, feel both sides have benefits, so why do people try to belittle the other side? There is a place for student's passively learning and there is a place for active learner participation in instruction.
The CHEAT Benchmark
-
For those interested in issues around agentic AI and assessment, I’m
excited to announce the launch of the CHEAT Benchmark
(https://cheatbenchmark.org/). T...
Individual Harmony: Vegetarian Lifestyle
-
Vegan way of life is a standout amongst the most widely recognized sorts
of accomplishing individual congruity and concordance with our general
surroundin...
grant review
-
So haven't posted for a while in here, but since I am having my students
create a blog this semester I thought I should get back into it too.
Anyone who kno...
Jim Groom is Watching Me
-
Jim Groom, aka Rorschach, is watching me. He apparently took umbrage with
my ELI presentation in which I–very much tongue-in-cheek–suggested that he
and Mi...
Reflecting on reflection
-
The art of teaching is just that, an art. Some people come by it naturally,
and some have to work at it. To me, the key to becoming a good teacher is
conne...
