There is something about blog posts that encourages introspection. This is probably no different to the keeping of a hard-copy "dear diary", but I have never thought to put pen to paper in such a way.
I have always been dumbstruck when I have encountered people who have, for years or decades of their life, been keeping a daily diary. Where do they find the time or motivation? I can see some merit though. It is a very good way of ordering your thoughts and cutting through to the essence of things.
I have taken several other experiences from this course that will likely carry over into my academic life. Aside from the sheer fun of playing with web gadgetry (which naturally appeals to me), I think the biggest lessons have been those relating to how all this stuff fits into:
a) educational theory as it relates to effective learning.
b) broader social and generational issues of web and information technologies for adults more broadly.
I remain torn apart by opposing forces. Attracted by the whiz-bang sparkles and the knowledge that these things can really bridge distances and bring people together. Repelled at the same time by the pace and relentlessness and the upheaval of it all.
But this is probably just as it should be. Technology is neutral. Science is neutral. It is up to our civilised brains to put this all to good use, and keep a little calm and rational in the process.
I look forward to hearing how others that have undertaken this course go on to apply the principles in their programmes. Thank you to Matthew and to all my fellow students.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Some of my comments elsewhere
http://jwiley-jansblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/learning-styles-and-ict.html#comments
http://bowler-gcut.blogspot.com/2010/07/day-6.html#comments
http://bowler-gcut.blogspot.com/2010/07/day-6.html#comments
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Medical Problem Based Learning via the Web
A paper was put forward in the Journal of Educational Computing Research (Schell & Kaufman, 2009). The authors ran a pilot program whereby they transferred a problem-based learning tutorial (designed for a medical degree) into the online world.
By combining an education content management system (the now defunct Web-CT) with a voice over internet protocol system (VOIP) they were able to provide many of the essential elements of a standard PBL tutorial through these two platforms. This pilot used text, video, audio as well as web conferencing with an online expert facilitator to run the tutorial for students that were geographically displaced.
A careful analysis was performed using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative measures to discover whether critical thinking could occur in this setting. The findings suggested a very high usage of critical thinking skills online.
The authors made the point that increasingly, it is difficult for students to gain access to "live patients" and so a heavy focus on PBL methods is important. One limitation was that the authors used kinesiology students rather than medical students for the study owing to their university not currently hosting a medical course. A benefit to this though is that they were naive to the PBL process.
While I had previously thought it impossible to replicate PBL process without "face-to-face" contact, I am reminded now that there is very little that cannot be achieved with the right mix of media and web technologies. I look forward to faster network conenctions allowing rich video conferencing.
Reference:
By combining an education content management system (the now defunct Web-CT) with a voice over internet protocol system (VOIP) they were able to provide many of the essential elements of a standard PBL tutorial through these two platforms. This pilot used text, video, audio as well as web conferencing with an online expert facilitator to run the tutorial for students that were geographically displaced.
A careful analysis was performed using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative measures to discover whether critical thinking could occur in this setting. The findings suggested a very high usage of critical thinking skills online.
The authors made the point that increasingly, it is difficult for students to gain access to "live patients" and so a heavy focus on PBL methods is important. One limitation was that the authors used kinesiology students rather than medical students for the study owing to their university not currently hosting a medical course. A benefit to this though is that they were naive to the PBL process.
While I had previously thought it impossible to replicate PBL process without "face-to-face" contact, I am reminded now that there is very little that cannot be achieved with the right mix of media and web technologies. I look forward to faster network conenctions allowing rich video conferencing.
Reference:
Schell, R., & Kaufman, D. (2009). Critical Thinking in a Collaborative Online PBL Tutorial. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(2), 155-170. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ipacez.nd.edu.au/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ857829&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Monday, July 26, 2010
Learning styles
I have completed the VARK learning styles questionnaire. This was an interesting experience. On the one hand, I felt quite self-conscious and felt that the questions were very transparent. But when I looked at the points for each domain - Visual, Aural, Read/Write, Kinaesthetic (and Muti-modal) - I recognised the scores probably do reflect who I am....or at least the way that I see myself. I tried to be honest in answering the questions.
My score was strongly tilted towards the Aural learning style, with perhaps a secondary trait of Visual coming through as well. Read/Write was my lowest domain with only 1 point.
Looking back at the way that I approached study in my undergraduate days is revealing. I rarely took notes in lectures - and when I did, I almost never looked back at them. Where some people seemed to have a photographic memory for pages from a book, I would often sit in an exam and recall the exact words that a lecturer used when talking about something. Of course, this was a much stronger skill for topics or lecturers that interested me or that I found engaging.
A lot of this approach and preference can be seen in a discussion board topic that I posted this week in response to a post about handing out lecture notes/powerpoint slide copies. While I wasn't specifically thinking about learning styles, my aural preference probably had a lot to do with my position (i.e. not encouraging a focus on notes during lectures).
In the end, it is challenging but important that teaching and learning activities can to appeal to as many of the different styles/modalities as possible. We have to fight the urge to teach the way we ourselves learn.
Fortunately in medicine, there are many types of activities and approaches possible. Kinaesthetic learners (examination skills) and read/write learners (lectures, self study, library, essays) seem to be well catered for. Anatomy pracs probably appeal to visual learners. Lectures work reasonably well for aural learners. Always room for improvement though in a course like ours.
My score was strongly tilted towards the Aural learning style, with perhaps a secondary trait of Visual coming through as well. Read/Write was my lowest domain with only 1 point.
Looking back at the way that I approached study in my undergraduate days is revealing. I rarely took notes in lectures - and when I did, I almost never looked back at them. Where some people seemed to have a photographic memory for pages from a book, I would often sit in an exam and recall the exact words that a lecturer used when talking about something. Of course, this was a much stronger skill for topics or lecturers that interested me or that I found engaging.
A lot of this approach and preference can be seen in a discussion board topic that I posted this week in response to a post about handing out lecture notes/powerpoint slide copies. While I wasn't specifically thinking about learning styles, my aural preference probably had a lot to do with my position (i.e. not encouraging a focus on notes during lectures).
In the end, it is challenging but important that teaching and learning activities can to appeal to as many of the different styles/modalities as possible. We have to fight the urge to teach the way we ourselves learn.
Fortunately in medicine, there are many types of activities and approaches possible. Kinaesthetic learners (examination skills) and read/write learners (lectures, self study, library, essays) seem to be well catered for. Anatomy pracs probably appeal to visual learners. Lectures work reasonably well for aural learners. Always room for improvement though in a course like ours.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
When it all goes wrong
One of the interesting hurdles in tertiary IT is the variability of network functionality. Two examples follow.
This week we all received an email from IT at UNDA. Essentially it was an apology. UNDA is migrating from old Sun webmail servers to a new live@edu platform. The email admitted that the Sun system is on its last legs and wasn't coping with the load. Now, I am not sure if this means that emails are not being delivered, not received, or whether they are just arriving late, but either way, this is a critical failure. It reminds us all of the vulnerability of tertiary IT systems. It isn't necessarily a reason to abandon modern technology, but just one of the little niggles that makes people frustrated.
A second hiccough this week was that our educational CMS, "Blackboard" has been shutdown over a (bit more than) 48 hour period across the weekend. From 5pm Friday until Monday morning. What this means, is that while I had set aside time to completing my assessment tasks for this subject in ICT (ED6114), I can not do so. All the course materials and unt outline are online. Grumble, grumble, snort.
Tertiary IT really needs to lift it's game if it to secure the confidence of staff and students. Communication is the backbone of any organisation and deserves adequate attention and funding that allows for strength and stability. After all, the internet and email came to academia long before it came to the public.
This week we all received an email from IT at UNDA. Essentially it was an apology. UNDA is migrating from old Sun webmail servers to a new live@edu platform. The email admitted that the Sun system is on its last legs and wasn't coping with the load. Now, I am not sure if this means that emails are not being delivered, not received, or whether they are just arriving late, but either way, this is a critical failure. It reminds us all of the vulnerability of tertiary IT systems. It isn't necessarily a reason to abandon modern technology, but just one of the little niggles that makes people frustrated.
A second hiccough this week was that our educational CMS, "Blackboard" has been shutdown over a (bit more than) 48 hour period across the weekend. From 5pm Friday until Monday morning. What this means, is that while I had set aside time to completing my assessment tasks for this subject in ICT (ED6114), I can not do so. All the course materials and unt outline are online. Grumble, grumble, snort.
Tertiary IT really needs to lift it's game if it to secure the confidence of staff and students. Communication is the backbone of any organisation and deserves adequate attention and funding that allows for strength and stability. After all, the internet and email came to academia long before it came to the public.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Immigrant vs Native
Image = "Day 10 // Continental Divide" CC flickr user: Eelke de Blouw
The podcast "pre-reading" on digital immigrants and natives for today's class was interesting but leaves me with mixed feelings and unsure of exactly where I stand.
I have always been an early adopter and have had a great deal of exposure to computers and the net, long before most people. This is because my father is a retired academic. As a child, in my school holidays I sometimes went in to his workplace and I saw him entering holed punch cards into very large computers at one of the universities. Later, we had CP/M based desktop computers, then MSDOS & PCs, then Windows and so on. My mother and father both had access to "Mosaic", the pre-cursor to Netscape Navigator in the early nineties when I had just started university.
So I have loved computers and tech since before they became the basis of mass consumer advertising and became fashionably "cool".
So it is easy and comfortable for me to defend the great wonders and exciting opportunities in class. Especially when there is great uncertainty amongst many of my fellow students. Very often in this world, anger is driven by fear which is driven by lack of knowledge or exposure. It is an uncomfortable feeling when our "juniors" know more about something than we do. Historically, elders tended to carry the most amount of knowledge and wisdom, and this is a little different.
But in other settings, I often adopt a different view. Not to be contrary. But because I feel divided. Many people see technology as the answer to all the world's ills. I disagree. It is hard to think of a technology that we have invented that didn't do almost as much harm as it did good. There are a few, but many such as motor vehicles or our ability to split the atom, were a double-edged sword. Web 2.0 may turn out to be similarly nuanced. The other aspect of this that I'm not so sure about is the school of "inevitability". To some extent technological change is indeed inevitable, but it is not inevitable that kids have to reduce play time outside, or that they must be bought a mobile phone aged 6. We have power as voters and as parents to help shape our society. Not necessarily through laws and through censorship, but more through education, incentives and other "soft" measures.
The podcast "pre-reading" on digital immigrants and natives for today's class was interesting but leaves me with mixed feelings and unsure of exactly where I stand.
I have always been an early adopter and have had a great deal of exposure to computers and the net, long before most people. This is because my father is a retired academic. As a child, in my school holidays I sometimes went in to his workplace and I saw him entering holed punch cards into very large computers at one of the universities. Later, we had CP/M based desktop computers, then MSDOS & PCs, then Windows and so on. My mother and father both had access to "Mosaic", the pre-cursor to Netscape Navigator in the early nineties when I had just started university.
So I have loved computers and tech since before they became the basis of mass consumer advertising and became fashionably "cool".
So it is easy and comfortable for me to defend the great wonders and exciting opportunities in class. Especially when there is great uncertainty amongst many of my fellow students. Very often in this world, anger is driven by fear which is driven by lack of knowledge or exposure. It is an uncomfortable feeling when our "juniors" know more about something than we do. Historically, elders tended to carry the most amount of knowledge and wisdom, and this is a little different.
But in other settings, I often adopt a different view. Not to be contrary. But because I feel divided. Many people see technology as the answer to all the world's ills. I disagree. It is hard to think of a technology that we have invented that didn't do almost as much harm as it did good. There are a few, but many such as motor vehicles or our ability to split the atom, were a double-edged sword. Web 2.0 may turn out to be similarly nuanced. The other aspect of this that I'm not so sure about is the school of "inevitability". To some extent technological change is indeed inevitable, but it is not inevitable that kids have to reduce play time outside, or that they must be bought a mobile phone aged 6. We have power as voters and as parents to help shape our society. Not necessarily through laws and through censorship, but more through education, incentives and other "soft" measures.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Ink and iPads
Earlier today, as we discussed the new web 2.0 technologies, I recalled an image from my early childhood. When I was perhaps 5 or 6 years old, we sat in school behind some very old desks. They were made of timber and were battle worn with many lines and pits and chips. In the corner of the desk was a little hole or depression. I learnt that this was for keeping one's ink.
It is likely that when ball-point pens took over, some people would have complained loudly, questioned the lack of authentic feel, questioned whether it might damage the developing hands of young people and so on. There might have been something like the modern concern that Web 2.0 tools generate in teachers unfamiliar with them.
Ultimately, the tools guarantee neither success nor failure in education. If used well, they can extend our capabilities and deliver rich learning experiences, but ultimately, the media itself is not enough. Sound design of course activities and high quality teaching skills are always important. Deficits in these things can't be made up easily, even with fancy new tools.
I didn't think much about this when I was young, but I imagine I am one of the last cohorts to have seen these desks which are now gone. It is hard to believe that some time before I entered school, people used ink and fountain pens (and even uills along time before that). It must have seemed an enormous upheaval when the ball-point pen came along. Elsewhere on the web I have found this description:
The first great success for the ballpoint pen came on an October morning in 1945 when a crowd of over 5,000 people jammed the entrance of New York’s Gimbels Department Store. The day before, Gimbels had taken out a full-page ad in the New York Times promoting the first sale of ballpoints in the United States. The ad described the new pen as a "fantastic... miraculous fountain pen ... guaranteed to write for two years without refilling!" On that first day of sales, Gimbels sold out its entire stock of 10,000 pens-at $12.50 each!
(Source: http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/ballpen.htm)
It is likely that when ball-point pens took over, some people would have complained loudly, questioned the lack of authentic feel, questioned whether it might damage the developing hands of young people and so on. There might have been something like the modern concern that Web 2.0 tools generate in teachers unfamiliar with them.
Ultimately, the tools guarantee neither success nor failure in education. If used well, they can extend our capabilities and deliver rich learning experiences, but ultimately, the media itself is not enough. Sound design of course activities and high quality teaching skills are always important. Deficits in these things can't be made up easily, even with fancy new tools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)