HOW DID INSTITUTIONS DESIGNED FOR LEARNING become so widely hated by people who love learning? It’s been almost two years (spring 2007) since Dr Michael Wesch of Kansas State University invited the 200 students in his “Introduction to Cultural Anthropology” class to tell the world what they think of their education by helping him script a video for YouTube.

The result was the disheartening portrayal of disengagement below (viewed almost 3 million times worldwide as of today):

LAST OCTOBER, Dr Wesch wrote, “Despite my role in the production of the video, and the thousands of comments supporting it, I recently came to view the video with a sense of uneasiness and even incredulity. Surely it can’t be as bad as the video seems to suggest, I thought… But when I walked into my classroom for the first day of school two weeks ago I was immediately reminded of the real problem now facing education. The problem is not just ‘written on the walls’. It’s built into them.”

The problem

“The video seemed to represent what so many were already feeling, and it became the focal point for many theories… Most blamed technology, though for very different reasons… luddites imagine students to be distracted and superficial while techno-optimists see a new generation of hyper-thinkers bored with old school ways…

“Texting, web-surfing, and iPods are just new versions of passing notes in class, reading novels under the desk, and surreptitiously listening to Walkmans… despite appearances, our classrooms have been fundamentally changed. There is literally something in the air, and it is nothing less than the digital artifacts of over one billion people and computers networked together collectively producing over 2,000 gigabytes of new information per second… Classrooms built to re-enforce the top-down authoritative knowledge of the teacher are now enveloped by a cloud of ubiquitous digital information where knowledge is made, not found, and authority is continuously negotiated through discussion and participation. In short, they tell us that our walls no longer mark the boundaries of our classrooms.

“…The walls have become so prominent that they are even reflected in our language, so that today there is something called “the real world” which is foreign and set apart from our schools. When somebody asks a question that seems irrelevant to this real world, we say that it is “merely academic.” Not surprisingly, our students struggle to find meaning and significance inside these walls. They tune out of class, and log on to Facebook.”

The solution

“Fortunately, the solution is simple. We don’t have to tear the walls down. We just have to stop pretending that the walls separate us from the world, and begin working with students in the pursuit of answers to real and relevant questions…

“We can acknowledge that most of our students have powerful devices on them that give them instant and constant access to this cloud (including almost any answer to almost any multiple choice question you can imagine). We can welcome laptops, cell phones, and iPods into our classrooms, not as distractions, but as powerful learning technologies. We can use them in ways that empower and engage students in real world problems and activities, leveraging the enormous potentials of the digital media environment that now surrounds us. In the process, we allow students to develop much-needed skills in navigating and harnessing this new media environment, including the wisdom to know when to turn it off. When students are engaged in projects that are meaningful and important to them, and that make them feel meaningful and important, they will enthusiastically turn off their cellphones and laptops to grapple with the most difficult texts and take on the most rigorous tasks.”

Most likely, your class is NOT going to be as exciting as this one (left), where the professor gamely laid on a bed of nails while someone else tried to break a cement block on him with a sledgehammer! In such a case, you are likely to be distracted by a backchannel.

As Chris Lott put it, “…regardless of what a participant has at hand– a backchannel, a laptop, a cell phone, a book, or a set of Legos– they are not and never will direct 100% of their attention forward and they will find ways to create the attention cycles that characterize engagement. I was able to ignore… incompetent teachers just fine back when the only thing digital [we] had access to was a watch.”

ON JUNE 9, ELLIOT MASIE posed a similar question to teachers and learning designers on LearningTown and received over 80 responses. It’s interesting to observe how Masie kicked off the etivity with a great “spark” (italicized emphases are mine):

Initially, some of the respondents expressed concerns of “how do we know where they are”, and that “It is distracting to the trainer and students sitting near you”.

Then one respondent Ray Eisenberg turned the tide by quoting George Siemens (”ERN – Social Media, Theory and Practice, Backchannel, Laptops in Classrooms” May 31, 2008):

“When I don’t have a laptop at a conference, I learn differently, not more. I learn what the speaker is saying, rather than the resources she is citing. When I have a computer, I don’t play solitaire … I use the opportunity to find related resources, follow up on information presented, and generally enlarge the sphere of what would often be a single-perspective presentation. I’m sympathetic with the concerns of laptop mis-use. Yet I wonder if the problem isn’t partly with our lack of modeling proper technology use. Perhaps we ought to utilize these tools for academic purposes, rather than continuing lecture models and seeing laptops as add ons to learning rather than a key contributor. “

Eisenberg then added, “I agree with Siemens. In a standard lecture, sage-on-the-stage format, there are probably going to be issues. If you bring the internet to center stage then I think that we will be able, as architects have long been successful in doing, convert a problem into a feature.”

Personally, some time last year, I’ve observed the same professor teach the same lesson to two classes of students in two different settings. One class was in a tutorial room while the other class was in a computer lab. The attention the students in the tutorial room gave the professor was much more. As a result, the professor’s level of confidence and energy in the tutorial room was correspondingly higher, and he managed to speak much more fluently and crack a few more jokes in the tutorial room than in the computer lab.

As for myself as a participant, I’ve often gone online while attending lectures and seminars. I’ve noticed that I’m able to add notes online and check out related resources quickly. However, I would often miss a few words here and there. If the speaker is a boring one, most of what he said would have escaped me.

• The Inc. 500 companies know far more about social media than one might predict,
• Social media have arrived in American colleges, and
• The use of social in the ivory tower is outpacing even the business world.

Sixty-one percent of the academic respondents use at least one form of social media. Four of the six social media have similar adoption rates to those of corporations. Blogging is the most common form among academia, at a 33% usage rate — 14% higher than that of the Inc. 500 respondents! Wikis, on the other hand, are used by only 3% of admissions departments compared with 17% of responding businesses in the Inc. 500. (See figure below.)

INTERESTINGLY, “ADMISSIONS DEPARTMENTS feel that social media is “very important” to their future strategy in almost a 2:1 ratio to Inc. 500 businesses that feel the same way (51% compared to 26%).” Nevertheless, it’s significant to note as much as 66 percent of Inc. 500 businesses consider social media important to their marketing/recruiting strategy! (See figure below.)

It’s such a pity that I cannot conduct similar studies among academia and businesses in Singapore and/or Asia. Still, my gut feel, since the beginning of this year has been: The statistics are likely to be similar.

Notes:

• The first study was based on detailed interviews with 121 companies from the Inc. 500, an elite group of the fastest-growing companies within the United States. The respondents are diverse in industry, size and location. They include 4 of the top 10, 7 of the top 25, and 22 of the top 100 companies from the Inc. 500 list.
• The second study was also based on detailed interviews in the US, this time among 453 admissions departments. The responding institutions are diverse in student size (from under 50 students to over 50,000), annual tuition (from less than $1,000 to over $40,000), funding (69% private, 31% public) and location (49 states are represented). The sample includes well-known private schools like Duke, Carnegie Mellon, Vassar and Wesleyan as well as many large public universities from states like Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Massachusetts.

Afternote 7 Aug 2007: According to a page on the CATLS site (Consortium for the Advancement of Teaching, Learning and Scholarship, apparently part of University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth), Dr Nora Barnes is Chancellor Professor, Department of Marketing and Business Systems, Director, Center for Business Research. She also received the President’s Award for Public Service in 2000 for contributing to a strengthening of the southeastern Massachusetts region’s business climate by providing timely and customized responses to the problems and issues faced by employers and employees.

Today, I’m publishing online two wiki research proposals which I’d written for a Masters in Instructional Design program at the National Institute of Education, Singapore:

• “The UTAUT and Electronic Brainstorming in a Wiki”: This proposal was written in April 2005 for “Implications of Social Psychology Theories & Research for Educators”, a module taught by Dr Angeline Khoo and Dr Lim Kam Ming. Could have worked on this as a project if not for the circumstances (long story). So, imagine my surprise upon finding a very similar project (Global Warming Student Speakout) on the Google for Educators site last October! Not sure though what the specific research questions were.
• “Mediating PBL in a Wiki environment” (1): This proposal was written in April 2005 for “MID809: Designing, Conducting, and Reporting Investigations”, a module taught by Dr Chee Kit Looi and Dr Myint Swe Khine. A revised experiment was conducted in November among two classes in a polytechnic. The results were mixed. However, due to more pressing concerns at work, the writeup for the results of this project has been placed on the backburner till now.

Looking forward to your comments, suggestions, queries, etc.

THEN I found Paul Allison wondering aloud in a “Teachers Teaching Teachers” post:

…perhaps those of us using digital photography, podcasts, Google maps,webcasts, wikis, video, del.icio.us, tags, blogs, Bloglines, Google Reader, online word processors, digital stories and poetry, and other Web 2.0 technologies need our own department, our own discipline, our own field of study… “Web Studies” would address new literacies that are not presently being taught in the traditional, core subjects. Web Studies needs to become more central in schools… I’m wondering if I’m still an English teacher. Probably not.

Checking out the comments section, I found Tom Hoffman’s response (“It’s All English”) in his Tuttle SVC blog.

Initially, I shared Paul Allison’s sentiments. However, suddenly, it seems obvious. It’s NOT about English, Math or Web Studies anymore. Just look at the graphic above again.

ACTUALLY, none of us got the right answer, although I did come quite close (the answer is in the Dutton & Aron link above, just scroll to the middle of the page). The Capilano story was one of many concrete examples (and experiments) which Professor Henck Schmidt used during a talk at Republic Polytechnic yesterday, to illustrate six key principles of learning and teaching, namely:

• Learning is basically construction of meaning, e.g. coherent theories about the world.
• Activation of prior knowledge facilitates the subsequent processing of new information.
• Elaboration of knowledge at the time of learning enhances subsequent retrieval. E.g. use of paired assocation.
• Organization of Knowledge: E.g. “Do you remember where you were and what you were doing when news on 911 broke out?” (Note: Actually, I kinda puzzled by this illustration. Didn’t get to clarify my doubts though.
• Contextual Dependence: Matching context facilitates recall.
• Intrinsic Interest: External rewards does not steer the learning, in fact it may reduce intrinsic interest and make the subject matter studied less interesting.

We (the audience), including many instructional designers from various IHLs in Singapore, were asked many interesting questions in order to trigger more questions and activate critical thinking. Truly gratified to have attended a talk by a man who models what he teaches. And to leave with an adrenaline rush…

The theme seems to be “Fear blocks people’s ears”: Fear in the patient and fear among the patient’s relatives and friends. So marvellously executed. Constantly bombarding the audience with multiple points of views — a young woman, a middle-aged one, an elderly one; the whiner, the “never-say-dier”; the the mother, the daughter/son, the husband, the neighbour, the doctor(s); how others’ apparent concern and advice could be “smothering” or “just wanting to know ‘You’re feeling fine’ “; becoming “invisible” once perceived as sick; issues of “control” versus “no control”; “hope” for cure, less pain, longer life, emotional support…. Truly thought-provoking and ever so witty.

Spent time deliberating on the topics which each student will work on — doing literature review and making presentations — individually and in small groups. For example, “Using Stories to Teach English”, “Play Making with Children”, “Labovian Analysis of Narratives” (cheem)… Still wondering what I should do. Borrowed a practice-oriented book called “Stories: Narrative activities in the language classroom” by Ruth Wajnryb (2003). The stories in the book are based on Labovian analysis, the associate professor said. Revisited Toulmin’s model of argument… aha!

The evening ended on a splendidly inspiring note with an animation movie called “The Man Who Planted Trees”. Wow! What one man can do! Makes me wonder how hard I’ve tried to be part of the solution instead of the problem. How easy it is to destroy! How easily we forget about the creative prowess within us! And how easily we tend to give up! :-p

Useful, informative and great for meeting people. Also had a great physical workout — climbing flights of stairs to LT1A (at NTU) for the 9am and 1.30pm keynotes, striding quickly every one or two hours from LT to LT (lecture theatre) at one end of the NIE cluster of buildings to the other, lugging along (among other things) a notebook PC, an iPod (with iTalk), a small digital camera and brochures from the exhibitors. By the second day, I’d left the hardcopy 985-page proceedings at home and started referring to the softcopy CDs instead.

One great pity though — 10 concurrent tracks full of interesting information and there’s only one me. If only I could easily switch channels… if only the conference organizer had made use of 10 virtual rooms in addition to the 10 physical rooms for the speakers to present their papers!

THEN PARTICIPANTS can choose to listen to and interact with speakers either virtually or physically. Those who prefer face-to-face (f2f) contact can still move from room to room. But those who prefer switching channels (I know many people walk out of many presentations halfway to go into others) can stay in one room and use their PCs to listen to and to interact with the speakers. When necessary, they can walk over to the room where the speaker is.

All participants can easily meet one another f2f during breaks and meal times. In addition, remote speakers and participants can join in the conference too. And recordings can be easily done and made available for further review, comments, etc.

Why isn’t anyone doing this in Singapore? OR why don’t someone appoint me as conference organizer and give me some free rein? Maybe it’s time for me to take some initiative? That is, after I’ve finished my thesis…

…it’s easy-to-use and practically free wikis that proponents say offer the promise of collaboration beyond e-mail, even though big editing kinks remain and other quirks and security flaws are sure to surface. Internet research firm Gartner Group predicts that wikis will become mainstream collaboration tools in at least 50% of companies by 2009. At Ann Arbor (Mich.)-based Soar Technology Inc., an artificial-intelligence company that works on projects for the Office of Naval Research, wikis enable the company to slash in half the time it takes to complete projects. Soar engineer Jacob Crossman says that’s because the wikis eliminate the usual flurry of back-and-forth attachments and resulting document-version confusion that’s rife in e-mail. At Dresdner, Rangaswami says that among the earliest and most aggressive adopters, e-mail volume on related projects is down 75%; meeting times have been whacked in half.

GREAT NEWS TO ME, given that my Masters thesis is on wikis. At the same time, since Dresdner is a Socialtext customer, the BusinessWeek report also sounds like a follow-up on one of the corporate wiki’s customer webpages:

1UP.com, the gaming division of Ziff Davis Media, one of the largest technology magazine publishers in the United States, has been a Socialtext customer for one year. 1UP.com was created to consolidate the online activities of several leading magazines. New General Manager Tom Jessiman sought an efficient and effective alternative to email and attachments as a way of working together.

This customer case study shows how use rapidly evolved from strategic planning to day-to-day coordination and communications, supported the brainstorming and launch of a new product and has led to promising experiments in group writing. Using Socialtext Workspace for group communications has reduced email volume dramatically to result in soft cost savings in excess of $1 million per year for a 50 person team. Project communication accelerated the project cycle of a four-month project by a month.

The initial reason for adopting Socialtext was as a substitute for group communication by email and attachments. When General Manager Tom Jessiman started the job he noticed, “a lot of confusion using email, well over 100 group emails a day, which was unwieldy, even nightmarish. Nobody knew what was the latest version of an attachment, everything was lost in inboxes and you had to data-mine your emails to find anything.”

Dear Learning & Training Colleague,

You have watched me, as reader of Learning TRENDS, experiment my way through the design of a very different event, Learning 2005, over the past 12 months. (Me: “It has been truly interesting to watch.”)

In just 3 days, I’ll have the incredible honor of welcoming 1,500 learning colleagues from two dozen countries around the world to the start of a very different type of “conference”. We changed a lot of assumptions during the design process and I wanted to share those with you, as a personal reflection:

• Focus on conversations and dialogues rather than presentation. People want to have focused and meaningful conversations with peers.
• Take away the overhead projectors in most sessions and limit facilitators to one slide. As slides go up and lights go down, interaction and engagement go down.
• Don’t solicit a RFP for presentations, rather reach out to colleagues and ask them to lead a conversation or kick off a case study. Inviting gets a much different and richer level of participation vs. the same people presenting the same stuff at all events in our field.
• Drop the trade show. Put supplier materials in a backpack and create some one hour face to face case study sessions. Paid participants don’t want to be forced into the trade show. Exhibitors are frustrated with that format. And, over 78 top suppliers signed on as sponsors and are coming as learners, as well.
• Ask people to do something rather than just listen. So, we are creating 24 communities and 12 task forces.
• Shift from keynote presentations to interactive interviews with 15 thought leaders, like Malcolm Gladwell and Marshall Goldsmith. Speakers love being able to interact with a host, the audience and each other. I will bring Steve Johnson back on the stage to mull the future with Malcolm.
• Use technology for an Extreme Learning Experience:

• RSS Feeds of all content.
• PodCasts for three months before and three months afterwards.
• Social Networking System to make new colleagues.
• Put all content into an open wiki and allow participants to evolve the session focus.
• Give everyone a radio interactive device to carry around.
• Leverage SMS Text Messaging.
• Have a dozen bloggers throughout the event, documenting it all live.
• Create a Jam Band with two dozen music oriented colleagues.
• Place all content in the public domain, using the Creative Commons License.
• Build a virtual world called LearnLand to experiment withe 3D Learning.
• Honor the need to revitalize the classroom rather than replace it. Invite Bob Pike and others to dream about the future of the classroom.
• Create the entire event as a Sandbox, with a spirit that says let’s experiment and most will succeed, some will change and some might fail. Learning innovations requires that risk.

I have learned so much during this past year. I am moved that 1,500 of you will be in Orlando starting on Sunday. I know that dozens more will decide at the last minute to join us at Learning 2005 and we will welcome you at the door. And, I appreciate that the 60,000 readers of Learning TRENDS can be a part of this experiment with us, by accessing all of the content on-line after the event and perhaps planning to come to Learning 2006 (Nov 4 – 8 in Orlando).

Thank you and I look forward to continuing to learn with you, my learning colleagues.

Elliott

Apparently when Google founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, first knew each other in their undergrad days in Stanford, they clashed incessantly, debating over many things. Jokingly, Page said he thought Brin was arrogant. Brin retorted that Page was obnoxious, “We had a kind of bantering thing going.” In the reporter’s words, “they were clearly drawn together – two swords sharpening one another.” Later however, it was their shared obsession with backlinks that started something big.

When Page and Brin began searching for topics for their doctoral theses, they kicked around 10 or so intriguing ideas, but found themselves attracted to the burgeoning World Wide Web.

“Page found the Web interesting primarily for its mathematical characteristics. Each computer was a node, and each link on a Web page was a connection between nodes – a classic graph structure… The World Wide Web, Page theorized, may have been the largest graph ever created, and it was growing at a breakneck pace. Many useful insights lurked in its vertices, awaiting discovery by inquiring graduate students… Page noticed that while it was trivial to follow links from one page to another, it was nontrivial to discover links back. In other words, when you looked at a Web page, you had no idea what pages were linking back to it…

“Academics build their papers on a carefully constructed foundation of citation: Each paper reaches a conclusion by citing previously published papers as proof points that advance the author’s argument. Papers are judged not only on their original thinking, but also on the number of papers they cite, the number of papers that subsequently cite them back, and the perceived importance of each citation. Citations are so important that there’s even a branch of science devoted to their study: bibliometrics.

“…it was Tim Berners-Lee’s desire to improve this system that led him to create the World Wide Web. And it was Larry Page and Sergey Brin’s attempts to reverse engineer Berners-Lee’s World Wide Web that led to Google. The needle that threads these efforts together is citation – the practice of pointing to other people’s work in order to build up your own.”

“Computer conferencing, first introduced in distance higher-education settings over 20-years ago, is increasingly presented as a forum for knowledge co-construction, informal argumentation, group problem solving, emancipatory dialogue, dialogue journaling, or relational communication (respectively, (Gunawardena, Lowe, & Anderson, 1997; Marttunen, 1998; Jonassen, 1996; Boyd, 1987; Fisher, 1996; Rovai, 2001).

“So far, many students and instructors have reported that conferencing enhances their learning or teaching, and that they enjoyed the experiences and look forward to participating in more conferences. However, two decades of research observation indicate that students rarely engage in the communicative processes that comprise critical discourse. More troubling, some reports suggest that in the rare cases when they do, they do not achieve the purported outcomes (Veerman, Andriessen, Kanselaar, 2000)….

“CRITICAL DISCOURSE is an enduring feature of higher education… As Weedman (1999) has shown, few scholars, artists, or professionals can produce their work in solitude; they need the give and take (thrust and parry?) of debate and critical discussion with their peers in order to develop their ideas. Theoretically, a wide range of scholars offer accounts of the role of argumentation in a diverse set of educational outcomes including cognitive development (Perret-Clairmont, Perret & Bell, 1989), higher order thinking (Vygotsky, 1972), conceptual change (Chi, Bassok, Lewis, Reimann & Glaser, 1989), emancipation (Mezirow, 1990), practical competence (Orr, 1996), epistemic development (Belenky, Tarule & Goldberger, 1997), and understanding (Gadamer, 1989)…

“In 2000, Garrison, Anderson and Archer presented an influential model of computer conferencing’s role in higher, distance education. At the core of their complex model was the process of critical discourse. For a computer conference to serve as an educational environment, they argued (Garrison et al., 2001, p. 15):

it must be more than undirected, unreflective, random exchanges and dumps of opinions. Higher-order learning requires sustained critical discourse where dissonance and problems are resolved through exploration, integration and testing.

“An operational definition of critical discourse emerges in the rubric they developed to assess students’ participation in conferences. At the upper end of their hierarchical rubric are conversational actions such as challenging others’ interpretations, supporting conclusions with evidence, and developing evidentiary hypotheses. Contributing to the definition are the responsibilities they assign to instructors: identifying areas of disagreement, seeking to reach a consensus, focusing the discussion, and diagnosing misconceptions.

“This model is just one among many in which critical discourse plays a central role. Despite the warm feelings that these phrases evoke among distance educators (like us), Laurillard pointed out in 1993 that, “One of the greatest untested assumptions of current educational practice is that students learn from discussion” (p. 171). Since that time, several researchers have responded to her challenge. Using labor-intensive data collection and analysis techniques, which typically involve classifying each locution produced by each student through the duration of a course, researchers often find results similar to Marttunen’s:

…results reveal that the interaction between students turns out to be mainly non-argumentative in nature: only a small percentage of students’ references to each others’ texts express opinions opposed to those of fellow students, and only a smaller fraction indicate grounded disagreement. The results suggest that the pedagogical aim of our studies, to engage students in argumentative interaction, is not realized very well. (1998, p. 397)

“In this study, we spoke with five students (from a group of 12) and their instructor while they participated in a computer conference as part of their graduate-level humanities course. They provided several insights into our observation that the forums contained little critical discourse: 1) They did not orient to the conference as a forum for critical discourse, and worse, they had competing orientations; 2) they perceived critiques as personal attacks; and 3) they realized early on that critical discourse was a bothersome means to obtain their participation marks.

“We suggest certain elements may ease some of these difficulties, including 1) well-structured learning activities with clearly defined roles for teachers and students, 2) a method of assessing students’ participation in the conferences that reflects the time and effort required to engage in critical discourse, and 3) an understanding of the technology’s function that attends to the students’ experiences.”

“US policy-makers, war-fighters, and law-enforcers now operate in a real-time worldwide decision and implementation environment. The rapidly changing circumstances in which they operate take on lives of their own, which are difficult or impossible to anticipate or predict. The only way to meet the continuously unpredictable challenges ahead of us is to match them with continuously unpredictable changes of our own. We must transform the Intelligence Community into a community that dynamically reinvents itself by continuously learning and adapting as the national security environment changes.

“RECENT THEORETICAL developments in the philosophy of science that matured in the 1990’s, collectively known as Complexity Theory, suggest changes the community should make to meet this challenge. These changes include allowing our officers more autonomy in the context of improved tradecraft and information sharing. In addition, several new technologies will facilitate this transformation. Two examples are self-organizing knowledge websites, known as Wikis, and information sharing websites known as Blogs. Allowing Intelligence Officers and our nonintelligence National Security colleagues access to these technologies on SIPRNet, will provide a critical mass to begin the transformation…

“The Wiki and the Blog are complementary companion technologies that together form the core workspace that will allow intelligence officers to share, innovate, adapt, respond, and be—on occasion—brilliant. Blogs will cite Wiki entries. The occasional brilliant blog comment will shape the Wiki. The Blog will be vibrant, and make many sea [of] changes in real-time. The Wiki, as it matures, will serve as corporate knowledge and will not be as fickle as the Blog. The Wiki will be authoritative in nature, while the Blog will be highly agile. The Blog is personal and opinionated. The Wiki is agreed-upon and corporate.

“The Wiki and Blog, however, while standing together, cannot stand by themselves. Intelligence officers need a wellspring of intelligence from which to build the Wiki and about which to comment in the Blog. Such a wellspring would be a community-wide intelligence repository patterned after DIA’s SAFE or CIA’s CIRAS. These repositories are largely disordered, out-ofcontext piles of cables. That is okay. The intelligence repository is like unrefined ore. (The repository could actually be many federated databases.) The Blog and the Wiki serve as successive refining processes for the unrefined ore in the intelligence repository. The Blog would vet, comment, and establish context for the intelligence. This extracted intelligence knowledge from the intelligence repository would be placed in the well-organized Wiki. Both the Wiki and the Blog would link back to authoritative source documents in the repository.

“While an intelligence repository is required “under” the Wiki and the Blog, two more technologies are required “above” them. One is a search technology and the other is a feedback technology. Part of the agility required in today’s high-speed national security environment is to be able to quickly find information. One needs the ability to search for specific knowledge within or across the Wiki, or the Blog, or the Intelligence Repository in a Google-like (www.google.com) fashion.

“While most intelligence officers are quite familiar with search technology, we are less acquainted with feedback technologies. These technologies are often in and of themselves self-organizing. For example, we might want to know which cables in the repository were most cited by the Blog over the last 24 hours. This feedback lets the visitor quickly know what the community thinks is important. It also lets the originator of the cable understand its impact. Feedback technologies let visitors know what areas of the Wiki are changing most rapidly as an indicator of newly vetted knowledge. Feedback technologies can utilize subscription techniques such as “send me an alert when more than 10 people have read my blog.”

“Wikipedia.org makes extensive use of these feedback technologies on its homepage. Another feedback Internet site (www.daypop.com) has dozens of real-time lists–from the top words to the top blog postings to and the top sources cited. Its Top 40 list not only gives the current ranking but whether the ranking is going up or down.

“Feedback technologies are an integral part of the solution suggested by Complexity Theory. As important as information sharing is to the success of the solution, it is even more important to know who is sharing what information. This allows intelligence officers to accurately understand where they are in the intellectual space of the intelligence community. It also allows intelligence officers to see what gaps exist and where changes need to be made. The feedback technologies allow an agile reading of the current state of play across the wide expanse of the Repository, the Wiki, and the Blog.

“Together, these five technologies (Repository, Wiki, Blog, Search, Feedback), would allow the community to start down the path of implementing the five mission recommendations (self organization, tradecraft, information sharing, feedback, and strategic communication) suggested by Complexity Theory.”

“Things change dramatically when a learner feels Content Abundance vs. Content Scarcity. A few years ago, we were often teaching learners who felt a sense of scarcity. They often viewed our classes or e-Learning modules as the primary or only solution to their information and knowledge needs. As the power of the internet is extended, I have noticed a major shift from Scarcity to Abundance.

“Many learners now feel information rich, or even overloaded. They know they can go to their search engine, type a few words and get an up to date list of links to knowledge resources. This is often viewed as better than the list of links that the classroom instructor hands out at the end of the class.

“AS WE PROVIDE resources in the Age of Content Abundance, it becomes even more important for learning professionals to address these dimensions:
* Invitation – Emerging models for inviting specific learners to learn specific content – aligned to personal, project or performance motivational factors.
* Personalization – Emerging models for allowing the learner to perceive (and predict) an efficiency of getting to the “just right” content.
* Granularization – Emerging models for helping the learner gain access to smaller and more targeted sets of content.
* Sequence Options – Help our learners to take one of several sequences through the content, based on needs and priorities.
* Context – In the age of abundance, learners have easy access to loads of content. It is more difficult for learners to access “Context”, the stories, best (and worst) practices and organizational realities.
* Performance Tools – Learners still want great job and performance tools. Give them digital or plastic laminated Job Aids.
* Calibrating Expectations – Trainers and instructional designers should recognize that learners feel Content Abundance. We should acknowledge that this shift has occured for many of our learners. Our courses and language should help learners calibrate their expectations of how much of the needed knowledge will come from formal vs. informal learning.”

“FIVE BLIND PEOPLE were walking down a path. They stumbled upon something that none of them had ever experienced before, an educational simulation. They each tried to describe it to the others.

“It is a class. People sit down and learn important ideas,” said the first.
“I don’t think so,” said the second. “It’s a computer game. It moves quickly, it involves a mouse, and requires my complete attention.”
“No,” said a third, “It can be used with a class, but it’s more like a book. It can be sold anywhere in the world. It is scalable–hundreds of thousands can engage it at the same time.”
“What are you talking about?” asked the fourth. “It is like a pill. It is a compact package of intellectual property that improves quality of life.”
“I beg to differ,” said the fifth. “It is more like a gym. It requires the users to work hard and sweat and put in hours to tone themselves.”

AM REMINDED of the Education Pill metaphor that A/P Hoadley used in a seminar two months ago. “Assuming that an Education Pill is possible,” he had said. “How would we evaluate it? How would we discover it? How would we manufacture it? What other questions arise?”

After spending some time discussing in small groups, we discussed as a class. Issues brought up included:

• Outright rejection. Idea of pill seems like idea of education as transmission. Generalizing from bad examples?
• Diagnostic (Problem) issues. Education vs. learning? What are the goals of education? What needs to get evaluated? What’s the best thing to do? Intervention, treatment or description? What are the things worth intervening in?
• Treatment issues. Differences between causes and symptoms? Does one pill fit all? Customization to suit individual differences? Side effects? “This cough syrup tastes bad!” Dependency (addiction to pills)? Multiple intelligences issues: scoping how much one pill can do. Same vs. different pills (e.g. one for Math, one for Biology). Differences between fixing a problem and speeding development. How do you know what the relevant covariates are? What is expecting too much of a pill? Is learning about physiology or not?
• Control, Social and/or Political (power) issues. Who gets to control access or administer the pill? Discount pills (reverse effects)? What if you got the wrong pills?! Entropy — Changing the evolutionary pressure on mankind (changing to Japanese?)

It occured to me then: “Actually, we are already using an Education Pill very extensively in Singapore. It is ‘tutoring’. Almost everyone has taken this ‘tutoring’ pill, some more some less — at different levels and with different potencies. RP is also taking an Education Pill. That is, Problem-Based Learning (PBL). This teaching strategy is being used throughout the whole campus, for all subjects at all levels for all students. Does this one pill really fit all?”

(See also What Is Truth? and Figures of Speech. Try the Metaphorically Speaking quiz.)

It was like discovering a treasure trove. All i did was: registered for a free account, downloaded and ran the Avantgo program on my PC, selected some recommended channels (e.g. ChannelNewsAsia, CNET, Straits Times, Washington Post and Wired) within AvantGo, added some personal channels (e.g. Creighton University’s Daily Reflections and Mobile Gabriel (click “Subscribe”), Universalis), and then synchronized my PDA. Also downloaded the BibleReader, as well as the Douay-Rheims (w/deuterocanonical books), the Modern King James Version – MKJV and the Latin Vulgate from Olive Tree.

Now, i can browse lots of interesting stuff offline on my Tungsten — news, features, technology reviews, as well as different versions of the bible, daily mass readings, reflections, morning and evening prayers. Hmm, Avantgo has been around since 2001. Some of my colleagues had in fact been working on some PDA projects at least one or two years ago. Currently, there are supposed to be more than 1,200 Avantgo Web sites! Surely, after filtering out the “dross”, some can be put to good educational uses?

(See also Teaching & Learning with PDAs.)

DBR subscribes to the sociotechnical systems theory and the activity theory. It studies learning in context, taking into account the impact of contextual factors on the measured outcomes of specific interventions (which in turn are based on certain theories, hypotheses or methodologies). It integrates design practices and academic research, so as to make the outcomes both relevant and rigorous for all stakeholders — teachers, students, researchers, designers and policy makers. Somewhat like Action Research (Lewin, 1946) with a contextual and design focus, as well as a longitudinal and multi-party view.

“The conjunction of problematic and determinate characters in nature renders every existence, as well as every idea and human act, an experiment in fact (reality), even though not in design (intention). To be intelligently experimental is but to be conscious of this intersection of natural conditions so as to profit by it instead of being at its mercy.” — John Dewey

REVISITED the tensions between ‘Industry’ and ‘Academia’, this time with more sophisticated (or distinguished) vocabulary.

For example, ‘Research-Based Design (RBD)’ vs. ‘Design-Based Research (DBR)’, ‘practice’ vs. ‘research’, ‘relevance’ vs. ‘rigor’, ’short/quick vs. long/slow’, ‘high/low theory vs. high/low applicability (Stokes, 1997, see diagram on the right), ‘awful reputation of ed research (Kaestle, 1993), ‘methodology and the research practice gap’ (Robinson), ‘problems and possibilities’ (Shulman, 1999), ‘usable knowledge’ (Lagemann) and finally, ‘Aristotle’s three types of knowledge: episteme, techne and phronesis’ (Flyvbjerg, 2001).

And like design methods, DBR is purposeful, creative, open-ended, iterative (continuous, on-going), robust (incomplete predictability, e.g. see-move-see [Schon], participatory co-construction of meaning [Ehn]), inherently empirical in epistemology, and involves local science/wisdom (diSessa).

Will the gap between ‘Industry’ and ‘Academia’ be closed with DBR? After 100 years of educational research, have research findings been of great relevance to teaching practices yet? Perhaps we need another 15 years more, A/P H. said.

SIXTH-GRADE teacher Ellen Berg desperately wanted to show her students the true meaning of a fairy tale, but [how to] organize an activity that would encourage them to develop their own definition of the term, willingly? The “jigsaw method” provided the backdrop for the dynamic and engaging lesson that her students still recall!

Berg began by having her students divide into five equal groups, each with one fairy tale to read: “The Ugly Duckling,” “Snow White,” “Hansel and Gretel,” “Jack and the Beanstalk,” or “The Three Little Pigs.” Each was responsible for collecting information such as: Who are the characters in the story? Where does the story take place? What are the major events of the story? Are there any supernatural events? If so, what are they?

After the students read, discussed, and recorded the above information, one person from each fairy tale assembled in a new jigsaw group. Each spent three minutes to tell the other new members the story they read and researched. After that, every group created a poster and gave a presentation addressing two points: (1) What do all five stories have in common? (2) Using what you found in common, write your own definition for a fairy tale.

FIRST HEARD of the “Jigsaw Classroom” technique when somone mentioned it during a Social Psychology class. Encountered it again yesterday upon finding a ‘Group Dynamics” file at the University of Delaware PBL Clearninghouse site.

Aha! So, this is how it works. Just that the explanations are a little different. The ‘home groups’ illustrated here are equivalent to the ‘jigsaw groups’ in the story above:

“IN THE EASTERN RELIGION, Zen Buddhism, the goal is to achieve enlightenment. The Zen master attempts to bring about enlightenment in his pupil in various ways. One of the things he does is to hold a stick over the pupil’s head and say fiercely, ‘If you say this stick is real, I will strike you with it. If you say this stick is not real, I will strike you with it. If you don’t say anything, I will strike you with it.’ ” (Bateson 1972, p.208).

“This is a clear double bind situation because all the proposed solutions are ruled out, yet it can be solved without schizophrenia or flight, if the pupil manages to take the stick from the master and thus transcend the constituent conditions of the situation.”

“ONE SPECIAL and very demanding type of learning may be termed as transformation or transformative learning. This type of learning occurs in crisis-like situations that can only be solved by transcending the premises of a problem or situation. It may take place through long and often painful adaptation or through shorter, intense processes. In both cases very strong motivation and the ability to raise considerable psychological resources is required.

“Structurally, transformative learning involves the simultaneous restructuring of several cognitive as well as emotional schemes. Functionally, it changes the learner’s self and thereby provides the learner with qualitatively new understandings and patterns of action.

“…Time and time again well-known American humanistic psychologist Carl R. Rogers points out that ‘…any significant learning involves a certain amount of pain, either pain connected with the learning itself or distress connected with giving up certain previous learning’ – ‘learning which involves a change in self organization – in the perception of oneself – is threatening and tends to be resisted’ – ‘all significant learning is to some degree painful and involves turbulence, within the individual and within the system.’ (Rogers 1969, p.157-9, 339).

“…Engestrom sums it up thus: “In [this type of learning], the subject becomes conscious and gains an imaginative and thus potentially also a practical mastery of whole systems of activity in terms of the past, the present and hte future. Individual manifestations of [this type of leanring] are commonly called ‘personal crises’, ‘breaking away’, ‘turning points’ or ‘moments of revelation’.” (Engestrom 1987, p.153).”

(See also Neither Death Nor Life.)

(Extracted from a paper by Yusra L Visser (2002), Effects of Problem-Based and Lecture-Based Instructional Strategies on Problem Solving Performance and Learner Attitudes…)

“LEARNING SPECIALISTS generally agree that problem solving, together with several other core competencies (e.g., comprehending and composing, critical and creative thinking, and metacognition) is among the most important dimensions of thinking and learning (Jonassen, 1994). Nickerson (1994) has pointed to several of the reasons why the ability to engage in effective and purposeful problem solving is critical to the development of individuals and their communities.

“… Despite the acknowledgement of the importance of developing problem solving skills, relatively little research has been conducted on this theme in the field of instructional design (Jonassen, 1994). Moreover, within the existing research base, even fewer contributions have been made to the development of instructional design approaches for ill-structured or complex problem instruction. The majority of the instructional design literature in the area of problem solving instruction points to the use of particular instructional strategies to support the acquisition of problem solving skills (e.g., cognitive apprenticeships and microworlds). However, these strategies have rarely been researched with sufficient rigor to ascertain their effectiveness in achieving the desired outcomes.”

“If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research, would it?” — Albert Einstein

THE PAST TWO WEEKS had been rather anxious ones because a once-promising thesis seemed in danger of becoming an impractical one. Perhaps this thesis is ahead of its time right now.

The idea came from an interesting discussion with a professor. What would motivate students to want to solve a problem? The initial answers seemed straightforward enough. Something that Maish Nichani mentioned at a Knowledge Management seminar months ago came to mind: a story problem needs ‘PHAT’ — ‘P’ for Passion, ‘H’ for Hero, ‘A’ for Antagonism and ‘T’ for Transformation. In other words, Identification (PHAT) and Tension (PHAT) factors. A great thesis can written based on this, the professor had said.

With mounting pressure from my pre-dissertation module instructors, for lack of a better idea, I was intrepid enough to try to tackle this for my Masters thesis. I saw that I would need plenty of problems to conduct the study. So, my ideal subject was: two classes in a Republic Polytechnic (RP) since they solve a problem a day — that would give me 14-16 problems a semester!

Was told that I had excellent research questions: (1) How to write engaging story problems that polytechnic students can identify with and want to solve with all their hearts and minds? (2) What types/levels of engagement are desirable? (3) What types/levels of Identification (PHAT) would engage polytechnic students appropriately? (4) What types/levels of Tension (PHAT) would engage polytechnic students appropriately? (5) Do the students’ problem-solving performances improves with greater engagement?

Spent lots of time over the past month: reading up papers (such as Bangert-Drowns & Pike’s taxonomy of engagement modes, Ahmad Ibrahim Etheris’ Computer-supported collaborative problem solving and anchored instruction…), contacting the RP CED director, discussing with my research partners, observing a PBL class in progress, mulling over appropriate research methodologies, and so on. Finally realized what a mammoth task this is. Yes, this can be a lifetime’s work, as the professor had added then. But I didn’t register that then.

A problem with this PBL thesis is: How does one define the Tension and Identification factors, now that most problems written in RP are not really story/scenario problems (and i thus cannot simply use “PHAT”)? Another problem: The existing process logs, such as reflection journals, self and peer evaluations (often known to be a “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” kind of thing), facilitator’s assessment and observations, seem too sketchy and unreliable for drawing conclusions.

So, how does one track the students’ problem solving processes in enough detail to gauge the levels of engagement among some 20-odd learners for 14-16 problems over a semester in a polytechnic where i don’t work? Interviews and observations would not be enough.

Video recording? We would need to aim four cameras at four groups of students over 14-16 days in a term since they tackle one problem a day. If we have two classess, the resources would need to be multiplied by two! Knowledge forums? Why would the students discuss online when (1) they can simply talk to one another at once, (2) they need to move from one stage to the next within one or two hours, and (3) these are not very motivated learners in the first place? Concept mapping? “Maybe, but only one pre-test and one post-test are feasible,” my research partner asserted. “We don’t want our students to get ‘research fatigue’.” We are still looking at the outcomes and not the processes.

Furthermore, RP is simply not ready to start using new IT tools at the moment. They have one major new tool to introduce the next semester, Axon Idea Processor. And it is complicated.

i could almost see all my annual leave evaporate in the midst of frequent visits to RP.

While racking my mind for a new angle to the thesis or even an alternative one, i was suddenly struck by the fact that right here under my nose (in this polytechnic where i work), is a groupware experiment that i had conducted with a lecturer recently and it has been progressing quite smoothly!

Talk about opportunities in a crisis (危机)! Now i have a better and more stable thesis to work on! No need to take leave. And finally, there’s a technology component!

“FOR THE MOST PART, IMUO (In My Uninformed Opinion) the big monolithical enterprise solutions for elearning serve mostly to reinforce the learning via lecture paradigm (”record your lectures to stream via the internet!”) that leave the new generation…. well yawning in ennui.

“After all these years of “course management systems” (and is learning really about “managing courses”?), they still are completely structured wrong in that the main organizational scheme for them is the course (which is ephemeral) rather than the learner (who hopefully will stick around). When the course expires or is archived or deleted after the semester, there goes all the student’s work. During the brief existence of the “course” all of their work is filed away in different iron shoeboxes labeled “Chemistry” “Composition”, “Sociology” with no affordance to connect between the boxes, no integration across disciplines, no record saved of achievement and progress. The semester ends, grades transmitted to the registrar, and flusssssshhhhhhhh goes all the work that took place. “

Was quite struck by the statement. It wasn’t new. But so it is. When we write learning objectives for a desired attitude in an earlier module (”MID801 Instructional Design Models & Practices”), we had been taught to write, “The learner will choose to behave [in a certain way].” Yes, regardless of whether s/he likes or dislikes that particular behavior. And often, when someone has a bad attitude, it’s not so much that s/he does not know how or does not have enough practice, but rather s/he is not convinced by the why.

OTHER VERBS often used for writing attitude-related learning objectives include: “accept, adopt, advocate, approve, assess, challenge, characterise, criticise, defend, evaluate, formulate, judge, justify, manage, model, persuade, recommend, resolve, select, specify, value, re-assure, empathise.”

An extract from Instructional Design, a book by Patricia Smith and Tillman Ragan:

“An attitude is a mental state that pre-disposes a learner to choose to behave in a certain way (G. Gagne, 1985). Gagne describes attitudes as having cognitive, affective and behavioral components that interact. Attitudes influence the choices that learners make. For instance, an individual’s dislike for math may cause him to choose to avoid all courses that contain a math component. A child who loves animals may choose to purchase a pet. Certainly attitudes play a strong role in learners’ motivation to initiate and persevere in learning. (p.68)

“… The basic idea of attitudes is captured in the idea of choosing to do something… they are generally “affective” in nature … [that is,] the “knowing why” … The most fundamental condition achievement of the affective component is provision of a role model … a respected person who demonstrates the desired behavior. (p.252)

“… Gagne (1985) underscores the utility of modeling as an instructional technique … [and] presents a four-step procedure for the use of human models in attitude learning:

a. Establish the appeal and credibility of the model.
b. Stimulate the learner’s recall of relevant knowledge and concepts.
c. Demonstration or communication of desired action by the model.
d. Demonstration or communication of reinforcement of the model as a result of the action taken.

“… According to Gagne, in addition to particular role-playing methods that may be employed, such as case studies and simulations, conventional group discussion is also a legitimate means for practice of a desired behavior. In a discussion, as each student contributes from the point of view of the attitude at hand, that student serves as a role model for the attitude. The discussion leader has the opportunity to provide reinforcement for the discussion participant/role model, and as the discussion progresses, the attitude may be expressed with more and more precision.

“… the most powerful reinforcers seem to be those that we can call “natural consequences.” The thanks from someone you have helped, the safe passage through a dangerous situation, and observation of the benefit gained from help you supplied are all much more direct and powerful reinforcers than praise or reward from a teacher. In fact, in many situations, praise and reward can be worse than no attempt to reinforce at all.” (p.256)

(See also Attitude Is A Choice II. By the way, according to research, “persuasive messages” and “dissonance” are two other fundamental sources of attitude change besides “modeling” (p.252).)

ATTENDED A TWO-DAY CONFERENCE on educational technology (ET) at Suntec City last Thursday and Friday. So much hard work, so many speakers and so many participants from so many countries. Somehow though, it ended on a note of disillusion at the closing forum.

One participant stood up and observed, “Elearning has not yet delivered its promise of a teaching and learning utopia. Instead, what we have seems to be a Web of mass distraction.” Everyone laughed.

Another guy said, “In our search for gold, let us not be discouraged or disturbed by the dirt we find.” The chairperson quickly responded, “Ok, let us thank….” and ended the conference.

conference n. An electronic meeting place dedicated to a particular subject where users come to participate in discussions or group projects… An electronic conference provides a many-to-many communication medium, as opposed to the person-to-person nature of e-mail. — EE Link’s Glossary of Computing Terms

DURING the conference, other than a few enlightening sessions (such as two good keynote addresses and some HoD presentations on the use of online scaffolding to facilitate meaningful discussions among three primary schools), the usual thing happened. Most sessions turned out to be quite bland. While exhorting all to facilitate learning constructivistly, most presenters transmitted their knowledge (or findings) one-way while making lots of “motherhood” statements (obvious well-accepted cliches) about the need for constructivist teaching, benefits, and so on. Not walking their talk! The slides also left much to be desired — the words were often too small, too many; the graphics have too much details or are plain distracting.

IF i could organize the next ET conference (and have enough supporting resources — this is crucial because having organized much smaller conferences, i have some idea of how much work a conference can entail), i’ll make use of educational technology to enable speakers and participants to ‘conference’ with one another in a truly constructivist manner. Among other things, i would do the following:

1. Timing. Half the number of sessions and double the duration of each session to at least forty minutes.

2. Motherhood statements. Set aside a few introductory sessions on technology and pedagogy for those who are unfamiliar with educational technology. This shall be the only sessions where presenters are allowed to make “motherhood” statements.

3. Visual checklists. All presenters must go through checklists like Dr Bernie Dodge’s checklist for overall visual appeal.

4. Recordings. Pre-record all presentations (narrated PowerPoint, video unnecessary) or at least put all the PowerPoint slides online so that participants can preview and select sessions that meet their needs BEFORE the conference. Room sizes shall be allocated accordingly and not based on guesswork.

5. Real discussions. Actual conference sessions shall be used for topic-based discussions, and not for one-way transmissions, possibly using the “Progression” format (where based on a theme, several speakers host separate tables that each seats up to 10; participants join a table with a preferred topic, discuss with the speaker for about 20 minutes or so, and then move on to the next table with another topic).

6. Video conferencing. Include a video conferencing segment with one or more special overseas speakers.

7. Internet access. Put a few PCs with Internet access near registration booths and make them available for use by conference participants at a nominal fee.

8. Networking opportunities. Make it easier for participants to network with others who have similar experiences and/or interests, possibly through activities such as networking lunches or gaming, as well as online matching, discussion or polling.

First, to ‘Analyze’ audience, context and content is more appropriate than to ‘Explore’ the same. Second, to ‘Evaluate’ is also more appropriate than to ‘Track’. And ‘e’ (Evaluate) should sit right in the middle of the cycle like the spoke in a wheel. All stages shall move to and fro ‘e’ because the designer/technologist need to continually evaluate the effectiveness of every stage (whether ‘Analyze’, ‘Strategize’, ‘Produce’, ‘Rollout’ or ‘Influence’). And to be more complete, instead of KirkPatrick’s Reactions, Learning, Transfer and Results, the last stage should be based on Stufflebeam’s CIPP model — ‘Context’, ‘Inputs’, ‘Process’, and ‘Products’.

Finally, with new insights from a new paper by Drs C & H, the Strategize (S) and Influence (I) stages also need to be fine-tuned. The design of one or more activities (called ’spark’ by Dr Gilly Salmon, and termed Interactions in my model) is of primary importance — it motivates the student into action and learning (Motivate). As the C & H paper noted, the “designed activity should be situated in the real world context and should always be associated with an identifiable outcome (e.g. the activity of building a bridge has an identifiable outcome, that is the built bridge).”

There should also be rules of engagement, complementary roles as well as timely scaffolding (Engage) to encourage meaningful interactions, exchange of useful information and eventual development of community and personal identity (ties back to the Strategize (S) stage). Finally, appropriate knowledge tools (to use a Jonassen word, “mindtools”) are also necessary to enable the learners to collaboratively make sense of knowledge learnt/found and to construct new/integrated/transformed knowledge (Empower).

TO SEE A SUCCESSFUL COP (Community of Practice) in real life that embodies these principles and those in the C & H paper, check out Wikipedia.

The community there has good leaders and the right ingredients — good Situatedness, Interdependence, Commonality and Infrastructure. It is a living example of a very vibrant online community. The online outcome (a free open-content encyclopedia on the Web) actually better represents the community’s collective knowledge and perspectives, and is much more accessible to all members of the community than is possible for a F2F community.

Members collaboratively share and construct knowledge (in hundreds of thousands of quality articles — a highly complicated task which normally cannot be accomplished through F2F organizations, let alone communities). A wiki such as MediaWiki is their tool. The site’s Policies & Guidelines are their rules. All members take on the roles of writers AND editors. Anyone can change what anyone else wrote. Some (about 200-300 out of many thousands — a significantly larger pool of participants than is possible F2F), however, are administrators who can ban IP addresses and protect pages from abuse.

Finally, because of all these as well as their common goal (or object) and complementary strengths, they (the subjects) all have a common identity now — they are known as Wikipedians. And I’ve just become a new member of the community.

(See also Replies To Common Objections in Wikipedia and About Wikipedia in my MediaWiki.)

(Click here to see full-sized mindmap.)

STARTED ON TWO interesting and complementary modules this semester (late July to end Oct): Training Methods & Strategies and Multimedia Development I. Thanks to a great idea by new project mate L., i’m now looking forward to working on an old subject dear to my heart with an unusual and fun perspective: a comic one!

Read a very interesting book by Scott McCloud over the last few days. As the overview on the author’s website put it, “A 215-page comic book about comics that explains the inner workings of the medium and examines many aspects of visual communication along the way. Understanding Comics was a Harvey and Eisner winner, was praised in The New York Times, Publishers Weekly and Wired, and is in over 13 languages. A favorite of interface, game and Web designers despite the fact that it doesn’t mention computers once!”

SOME CHOICE QUOTES from the book, Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud:

“…you might say that before it’s projected, film is just a very very very very SLOW comic!

“Why…are…we…so…involved? Why would anyone young or old, respond to a cartoon as much or or more than a realistic image? … cartooning as a form of amplification through simplication…. Simplifying characters and images toward a purpose can be an effective tool for storytelling in any medium. Cartooning isn’t just a way of drawing, it’s a way of seeing! …”

“But, most striking of all is the substanitial presence of the fifth type of transition, a type rarely seen in the west. Aspect-to-aspect transitions have been an integral part of Japanese mainstream comics almost from the very beginning. Most often used to establish a mood or a sense of place, time seems to stand still in these quiet contemplative combinations…. Rather acting as a bridge between separate moments, the reader here must assemble a single moment using scattered fragments…

“The art of comics is as subtractive an art as it is additive. And finding the balance between too much and too little is crucial to comics creators the world over.”

Many people tend to veer from one extreme to another extreme, often following the letter rather than the spirit of the law. More than three years ago, behaviorist or cognitivist Computer Based Training (CBT) used to be the norm. Now, behaviorist terms have become taboo in many circles. The buzzwords now are almost all constructivist: “collaboration”, “problem-based learning”, “experiential learning”, “service learning”, and so on.

Yet, sometimes, wouldn’t constructivist approaches can confuse more than teach? And didn’t Ragan point out in his paper, Good Teaching Is Good Teaching, regardless of the label one may use?

BRENDA MERGEL NOTED in her paper [paraphrased], Instructional Design & Learning Theory, “Behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism — what works where and how do we knit everything together to at least give ourselves some focus in our approach to instructional design? First of all, we do not need to abandon the systems approach, but we must modify it to accommodate constructivist values. We must allow circumstances surrounding the learning situation to help us decide which approach to learning is most appropriate. It is necessary to realize that some learning problems require highly prescriptive solutions, whereas others are more suited to learner control of the environment. (Schwier, 1995)

“In A Manifesto for a Constructivist Approach to Technology in Higher Education, Jonnassen & Mayes stressed that it is still important to consider the context before recommending any specific methodology. They identified three levels of knowledge acquisition and matched them with appropriate learning approaches:

1. Introductory. Learners are at the initial stages of schema assembly and integration. They have very little directly transferable prior knowledge about a skill or content area. Classical instructional design is most suitable because it is predetermined, constrained, sequential and criterion-referenced. The learner can develop some anchors for further exploration.

2. Advanced. This is an intermediary stage. Constructivist approaches may be introduced.

3. Expertise. The learner can make intelligent decisions within the learning environment. A constructivist approach would work well.

“Reigeluth’s Elaboration Theory which organizes instruction in increasing order of complexity and moves from prerequisite learning to learner control may work in the eclectic approach to instructional design, since the learner can be introduced to the main concepts of a course and then move on to more of a self directed study that is meaningful to them and their particular context.

“After having compared and contrasted behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism, Ertmer & Newby (1993) feel that the instructional approach used for novice learners may not be efficiently stimulating for a learner who is familiar with the content. They do not advocate one single learning theory, but stress that instructional strategy and content addressed depend on the level of the learners. Similar to Jonassen, they match learning theories with the content to be learned:

“… a behavioral approach can effectively facilitate mastery of the content of a profession (knowing what); cognitive strategies are useful in teaching problem-solving tactics where defined facts and rules are applied in unfamiliar situations (knowing how); and constructivist strategies are especially suited to dealing with ill-defined problems through reflection-in-action.

1. Behavioral. … tasks requiring a low degree of processing (e.g., basic paired associations, discriminations, rote memorization) seem to be facilitated by strategies most frequently associated with a behavioral outlook (e.g., stimulus-response, contiguity of feedback/reinforcement).

2. Cognitive. Tasks requiring an increased level of processing (e.g., classifications, rule or procedural executions) are primarily associated with strategies having a stronger cognitive emphasis (e.g., schematic organization, analogical reasoning, algorithmic problem solving).

3. Constructive. Tasks demanding high levels of processing (e.g., heuristic problem solving, personal selection and monitoring of cognitive strategies) are frequently best learned with strategies advanced by the constructivist perspective (e.g., situated learning, cognitive apprenticeships, social negotiation.

“Ertmer & Newby believe that the strategies promoted by different learning theories overlap (the same strategy for a different reason) and that learning theory strategies are concentrated along different points of a continuum depending of the focus of the learning theory – the level of cognitive processing required.

“The duo’s suggestion, that theoretical strategies can complement the learner’s level of task knowledge, allows the designer to make the best use of all available practical applications of the different learning theories. With this approach, the designer is able to draw from a large number of strategies to meet a variety of learning situations.”

WHILE BROWSING IN THE LIBRARY two weeks ago, i happened to pick up a book published in 2002 by Diana Laurillard entitled, “Rethinking University Teaching — a framework for the effective use of learning technologies”. Was quite excited when i learnt about Laurillard’s five media forms for supporting active learning. They overlap almost neatly with Nichani’s four Interactive Visual Explainers (2003).

‘NARRATIVE’ is the same in both, ‘Interactive’ is equivalent to ‘Explorative’ and ‘Adaptive’ to ‘Simulative’. Laurillard’s ‘Communicative’ and ‘Productive’ are not in Nichani’s classification, but they coincide with the ‘Collaborative’ and ‘Constructive’ in my extrapolation last year (see ‘Industry’ vs. ‘Academia’ III).

Just now, during a lunchtime talk, when the manager of the eLearning Competency Centre mentioned Dr Ruth Clark’s Four Learning Architectures, my curiosity was piqued. Other than the different names, ‘Receptive’, ‘Directive’, ‘Explorative’ and ‘Guided Discovery’ seem to be identical to Nichani’s ‘Narrative’, ‘Instructive’, ‘Explorative’ and ‘Simulative’!

Just whose classification came first? Did one know about the other’s work? Or is this a case of great minds think alike?

i began to search for information on Clark and her work. Found a number of interesting things, among them: Clark’s learning architectures have been adopted by Cisco in its learning objects model. Clark also has a book entitled E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. Must borrow this book soon.

These days, as i continued working on the InfoGraphics Design projects for my part-time studies, different theories are beginning to fall into place as in a jigsaw puzzle. Gagne’s Nine Instructional Events (1985), Keller’s ARCS model (1987), Lave & Wenger’s situated learning (1991), Clark’s architectures (2000), Nichani’s explainers (2003), Laurillard’s media forms (2002), Miller’s Cognitve Load theory (1956), Merrill’s Component Display Theory (1983), Reigeluth’s Elaboration Theory (1983), Horton’s layering tactics (2000) and Wurman’s chunking tactics (2001).

After so many wild goose chases, the trail is finally getting hot!

TO DEMONSTRATE RIGOUR of the research process (how well the process leads to “truthful” and accurate findings), at least two of nine proposed verification procedures need to be conducted in any study: (1) Prolonged engagement, (2) Persistent observation, (3) Triangulation, (4) Peer debriefing, (5) Negative case analysis, (6) Member checks, (7) Thick description, (8) Access to an audit trial, and (9) Reflexive journal.

1. Prolonged engagement

“Prolonged engagement, is the investment of sufficient time to… learning the ‘culture,’ testing for misinformation卆nd building trust.” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 301).

2. Persistent observation“The purpose of persistent observation is to identify those characteristics… most relevant to the problem or issue being pursued and focusing on them in detail. If prolonged engagement provides scope, persistent observation provides depth.” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 304).

3. Triangulation

“Triangulation leads to credibility by using different or multiple sources of data (time, space, person), methods (observations, interviews, videotapes, photographs, documents), investigators (single or multiple), or theory (single versus multiple perspectives of analysis).” (Erlandson et al. 1993, p. 137-138).

“The degree of convergence attained through triangulation suggests a standard for evaluating naturalistic studies. In other words, the greater the convergence attained through the triangulation of multiple data sources, methods, investigators, or theories, the greater the confidence in the observed findings. The convergence attained in this manner, however, never results in data reduction but in an expansion of meaning through overlapping, compatible constructions emanating from different vantage points.” (Erlandson et al. 1993, p. 139).

4. Peer debriefing

“Peer debriefing helps build credibility by allowing a peer… who has some general understanding of the study to analyze materials, test working hypotheses and emerging designs, and listen to the researcher’s ideas and concerns. In such sessions, the researcher thinks aloud and explores various hypotheses, while the peer debriefer asks probing questions, plays devil’s advocate, and provides alternative explanations. Such sessions also allow the researcher to vent frustrations and emotions that may cloud the research. The peer debriefer can listen sympathetically to these feelings, defusing as many as possible, and help the inquirer devise coping strategies.” (Erlandson et al. 1993, p. 140).

“There is no formula to prescribe how a debriefing session should be conducted.” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 308).

5. Negative case analysis

“Negative case analysis may be regarded as a ‘process of revising hypotheses with hindsight.’ The object… is continuously to refine a hypothesis until it accounts for all known cases without exception” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 309).

“The researcher refines working hypotheses as the inquiry advances… in light of negative or disconfirming evidence. The researcher revises initial hypotheses until all cases fit, completing this process late in data analysis.” (Creswell, 1998, p. 202).

6. Member checks

- Informal (during data collection)

- Formal (after findings are written)

“The member check, whereby data, analytic categories, interpretations, and conclusions are tested with members of those stakeholding groups from whom the data were originally collected, is the most crucial technique for establishing credibility….Member checking is both informal and formal, and it occurs continuously.” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 314).

“Member checking may be conducted at the end of an interview … may be conducted in interviews by verifying interpretations and data gathered in earlier interviews … may be conducted in informal conversations with members … Before submission of the final report, a member check should be conducted by furnishing entire copies of the study to a review panel of respondents and other persons in the setting being studied.” (Erlandson et al. 1993, p.142).

7. Thick description

“The description must specify everything that a reader may need to know in order to understand the findings (findings are not part of the thick description, although they must be interpreted in the terms of the factors thickly described)” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 125).

“The question of what constitutes ‘proper’ thick description is, at this stage in the development of naturalist theory, still not completely resolved….the criteria that separate relevant from irrelevant descriptors are still largely undefined.” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 316).

8. Access to an audit trial

“The audit trail leads to dependability and confirmability by allowing an auditor to determine the trustworthiness of the study. It is important that adequate records be kept during the study” (Erlandson et al. 1993, p. 148).

“To provide for a check on dependability, the researcher must make it possible for an external check to be conducted on the processes by which the study was conducted. This is done by providing an ‘audit trail’ that provides documentation (through critical incidents, documents, and interview notes) and a running account of the process (such as the investigator’s daily journal) of the inquiry.” (Erlandson et al., 1993, p. 34)

“The audit trail… also enables an external reviewer to make judgments about the products of the study. An adequate trail should be left to enable the auditor to determine if the conclusions, interpretations, and recommendations can be traced to their sources and if they are supported by the inquiry.” (Erlandson et al., 1993, p.35)

Lincoln and Guba (1985, p. 319-320) describe six categories of records that should be made available. Erlandson et al. (1993, p.148-151) also provides a description of audit trail data.

9. Reflexive journal

“[The reflexive journal is] a kind of diary in which the investigator… records a variety of information about self… and method….that include the following:

1. the daily schedule and logistics of the study;
2. (2) a personal diary that provides the opportunity for catharsis, for reflection… and for speculation about growing insights; and
3. (3) a methodological log in which methodological decisions … are recorded. Entries should be made on a daily basis in the daily schedule and personal diary, and as needed in the methodological log.” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 327).

YESTERDAY MARKED THE FIRST ANNIVERSARY of the death of Madam Teo Siew Peng, 32, who fell from the 10th floor of Block 202 Choa Chu Kang Avenue 1. Yesterday was also the day High Court Judge Woo Bih Li visited the scene of her fall, to ascertain if she could have leapt to her death – or had been ‘helped’ by her boyfriend, Harith Gary Lee, 39.

Accompanied by lawyers and policemen, the judge made a round of the carpark at the rear of the block, where Lee had parked his van across three parking lots and where Madam Teo had landed. He also went to the 10th floor, standing outside her family flat along the corridor, where two women said they had witnessed Madam Teo clinging to the railing… crying out, as a man started lifting her legs higher and higher… Lee has denied killing Madam Teo. He claimed she committed suicide because of financial and other problems.

WHILE REVIEWING THE NOTES FOR EMAR (Evaluation Methods and Action Research) and IDMP (Instructional Design Models & Practices) after Prof H’s lesson last Monday, i was quite struck by something.

What we are being taught here seems to be a rather scientific method of finding, ascertaining, and acting on TRUTH — truths which are relevant to very specific purposes. For example, after some research and deliberation, we might decide that all academic staff in an institution of higher learning must create and maintain digital teaching portfolios. We would need to gather all relevant information, and then decide on the best way to achieve this by determining:
(1) Optimals — the desired components of digital teaching portfolios and the types of technologies to be used;
(2) Actuals — what the potential trainees currently know and do; time and other constraints;
(3) Feelings — the potential trainees’ and other stakeholders’ opinions and feelings about the problems or tasks;
(4) Probable Causes — what are causing the problems, from different perspectives; and
(5) Probable Solutions — ways of solving the problems or capitalizing on the opportunities.

However, the real work begins only when all the relevant data come in.

The reason: Data collection methods can range from direct participation, passive observation, films and videos to surveys, focus groups and interviews, as well as informal conversations and examination of documents and materials. This reminds me of something that a colleague has once spoken about: information sources can be primary, secondary or tertiary. The methods chosen would ultimately affect the validity and reliability of the data collected.

Knowledge, Prof. H noted, is within the meanings made out by people; it is gained through people talking about their meanings; it is laced with biases and values; and it evolves, emerges and is inextricably tied to the context. As such, the philosophical assumptions are: (1) Reality is subjective and multi-faceted. (2) Research is value-ladden and biased. (3) The solution should be inductive, contextualized, and emerging (discovery-oriented).

As reported by the Straits Times on Thursday, High Court Judge Woo Bih Li found it necessary to make a field trip (visit the scene of an alleged crime) to ascertain the truth. In this case, the testimonies of witnesses are not enough because codeine found in Madam Teo’s blood (or urine?) suggested that she could have been taking drugs.

So now, what’s next? How does one verify the validity and reliability of collected data? Can’t wait for the next lesson…

(See also Ascertaining Truth II.)

ONCE UPON A TIME, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them there is an elephant in the village that day. Having no idea what an elephant is, they all went where the elephant was and touched the elephant.

“Hey, the elephant is a pillar,” said the first man who touched his leg. “Oh, no! it is like a rope,” said the second man who touched the tail. “Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree,” said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant. “It is like a big hand fan,” said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant. “It is like a huge wall,” said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant. “It is like a solid pipe,” Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.

As they argued, they got more and more agitated. Each kept insisting that he was right. Finally, a man who can see explained to them, “All of you are right. The reason each one of you are telling it differently because you touched a different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features that you all said.”

ATTENDED LESSON TWO on Evaluation Methods last night. A refrain and a recurring thought was: “What is Truth? Even the one who claims to use the most objective evaluation method can be and is subjective.”

It was like the familiar “Instructivism versus Constructivism” debate again, and yet somewhat different. Our facilitator Prof H. had been deliberately steering us towards the realization that like the proverbial blind men and the elephant, “we can at most try to move closer to the Truth (or ideal solution); but we can almost never say that we have arrived there”.

For example, all the evaluation methods available today for education management can largely be grouped within one of four paradigms: Empirical (Quantitative), Interpretative (Qualitative), Post-modern and Pragmatic (Eclectic). Every paradigm, even the pragmatic one, has its strengths and flaws. Thus, the need for triangulation, pragmatic “mix and match” according to context, and so on.

In addition, just as the communication and perception of truth depends a lot on the speaker’s ability and the listener’s receptivity, effective evaluation also depends a lot on the ability of the evaluator — to focus on the right issue(s), ask the right people pertinent questions, sieve out irrelevant information and finally make the right interpretations.

Dr T.’s introductory lesson on Instructional Design Models & Practices in the earlier week seemed to resonate with Prof H.’s second lesson.

For example, as Robert Mager and Peter Pipe put it in their book Analyzing Performance Problems, “People do things for the strangest reasons. For equally strange reasons, they also don’t do things…. If we label others as having poor attitude and lack of motivation, we are finger-pointing, naming a culprit and hinting at a solution instead of probing for the problem by asking, ‘Why is this so? What causes it?’ Similarly, we jump the gun if we look at inadequate performance and declare, ‘We’ve got a training problem.’ Again, this confuses problem and solution. Training isn’t a problem; it’s just one of the solutions used to solve problems that arise when people truly cannot do what is expected of them.

“The danger in leaping from apparent problem to apparent solution is that large amounts of time and money can be spent in throwing training at a problem that training cannot solve. Similarly, if you leap to a conclusion that someone’s attitude needs to be ‘fixed’ and that what it takes is ‘training’ and perhaps a ‘good talking to’, you can end up blue in the face and nothing much changed. You need to dig a little deeper…

“People don’t perform as desired for many reasons; for example,
(a) they don’t know what’s expected;
(b) they don’t have the tools, space, authority;
(c) they don’t get feedback about performance quality;
(d) they’re punished when they do it right;
(e) they’re rewarded when they do it wrong;
(f) they’re ignored whether they do it right or wrong; and
(g) they don’t know how to do it.”

So, as Dr T. suggested, the model answer in academic circles in most situations is: “It depends.”

(See also What Is Truth… II.)

Excited that Information Design was finally introduced to e-learning practitioners, and Maish has done it very well, with lots of diverse and interesting examples. Particularly liked revisiting the first two — Charles Joseph Minard’s Mapping Napoleon’s March, 1861 and The New York Times’ From One Hotel Guest Many Infections (SARS) infographic.

Concerned though about a few probable issues: (1) The examples were mostly CBT-like, with little indications of actual information design principles at work (perhaps not enough time), (2) Maish’s focus had been wholly on visual design and nothing on the writing, (3) How are we going to teach this complex stuff to our academic staff (or students) who have very little time and motivation?

Is this a problem of academic theory vs. industry practice again?

LATER, BACK in the office, browsed the Features section of Maish’s elearningpost.com site and found a very neat classification by Maish Nichani and Venkat Rajamanickam called Interactive Visual Explainers (IVE) which postulates that interactivity in an interactive visual explainer can be either (1) narrative, (2) instructive, (3) explorative, or (4) simulative.

Interestingly, with a recent Learning Object competition organised by the e-Learning Competency Centre, the Cisco Learning Object (CLO, a legacy of technical writing and a derivative of Information Mapping) has now become a key reference point for e-learning practitioners in Singapore.

However, when i map what i understand about Bloom’s taxonomy to the IVE classification and the content types in CLO, i see some inadequacies in the two classifications to enable learning of higher order skills in Bloom’s taxonomy:

*E.g., structured discussions, virtual chat, virtual classroom, collaborative mindmapping
**E.g., Jonassen’s mindtools and constructive learning environments (CLEs)

Aha! One up for ‘Academia’?

(See also ‘Industry’ vs. ‘Academia’ and ‘Industry’ vs. ‘Academia’ II.)

For some time, many researchers and practitioners would support one school of thought and criticize the other school of thought. For them, this is often a mutually exclusive (’either or’) choice and not an inclusive (’both can do’) choice.

The Reflective Practitioner is probably another paradox.

…more later

(See also Discipline vs. Freedom I and Discipline vs. Freedom III.)

THESE DAYS, i’m once again intrigued by the concept of duality — just like earlier days when i was continually fascinated by many apparently contrary sayings of wise men such as Laozi, Buddha and Kahlil Gibran.

Was reminded of this while showing my Engineering Communication students a Graphics Design video last Monday evening. The narrator was introducing the key steps to successful design: (1) Purpose, (2) Media & Arena, (3) Supplies & Results, and (4) Discipline & Freedom.

YES, Discipline & Freedom! Seems like a paradox, doesn’t it? Yet, it ties in closely with what have been written in many biblical and mystical texts that I have loved. And with what Paul Rand (1914-1996) wrote in the A.I.G.A. Journal for Spring 1951:

1. Designing is not capricious arrangement.
2. Freedom of expression is not anarchy.
3. Understanding of the nature of new materials is not a exercise in novelty.
4. Functional form is not streamlining.
5. Order, discipline and proportion are not a Greek monopoly.
6. Simplicity is not nudity.
7. Space does not mean ‘empty space’; nor is ’space articulation’ the arbitrary placement of things in a void.
8. Sensitivity is not fussiness nor is it preciousness.
9. Glass bricks do not a modern house make.
10. Lower case letters and sans serif do not make modern terminology.
11. Montage is not synthesized confusion.
12. Cropping and bleeding are not the prerogative of a Blue Beard.
13. Texture is not exclusively a physical experience.

LIKEWISE, German architect Mies van der Rohe (1886 – 1969) is famous for his ‘Less is More’ and ‘God is in the details’ maxims. Throughout his life, especially in the last 20 years of his work, Mies tried to create contemplative, neutral spaces with material honesty and structural integrity through a glass and steel (sometimes also known as ’skin and bone’) architecture. His later works provide a fitting denouement to a life dedicated to this ideal of a universal, simplified architecture.

However, as Paul Rand pointed out, “Glass bricks do not a modern house make.” i suspect, as usual, a proper balance of Discipline & Freedom is key. In many ways, Mies’ architecture resembles Zen architecture in spirit — elegant and minimalist (but no simpler). It is achieved, i think, through one of those rare ‘Eureka’ (or what some people might call ‘Nirvana’) moments after lots of exploration and experimentation.

IN A SIMILAR VEIN, Picasso is famous not only for his abstract Cubist paintings but also for his earlier naturalistic paintings. Ditto for Zhang Daqian — initially well-known for his imitations of Chinese master paintings and later for his innovative splash ink technique. As T.S. Eliot has pointed out, and i extrapolate, it takes a master of rules to innovate and create true breakthroughs.

Interestingly, Robert McKee (author of STORY: Substance, Structure, Style and The Principles of Screenwriting, and said to be the consummate screenwriting teacher) made a similar point during a 3-day seminar in Singapore last January: “The Miniplot (minimalism) and the Antiplot (anti-structure) cannot have any meaning without the Archplot (classical design) as the reference point.”

Again, i see Discipline & Freedom!

(see Discipline & Freedom II in OnlineLearningTeacher)

Looking back now, if i’m the instructor, i might re-design the course. M. and i put up a similar idea via simultaneous typing in a virtual chat last Wed. For an instant, we ’smiled’ in cyberspace at the meeting of our minds as M. wrote, “i think we are talking the same language”.

FOR SHE HAD written, “A lot depends on the motivation and preferences of the individual. Some individuals have the time/motivation to feel the commitment to work on group assignments. others might think — I would really like to work on this assignment collaboratively, but I’m worried that I won’t be able to devote the time, and don’t want to let anyone down. So, it might be good to make collaborative activities, small bites.”

And i had written, “For people unfamiliar with or not ready for academic studies, it would be good to start with one key paper and an e-tivity. More papers can be read along the way to achieve one or more goals in the activity.”

Another thing that struck me during the course was: the three assignments (concept matrix, strategies & tactics, and reflective journal) have been very useful in helping us develop understanding and insights; but they are still very theoretical. i could have added a practical component to the assignments in the course towards the end of Module 2. For example, if there are 39 participants, they could be divided into teams of threes or fours. Each team is supposed to design an e-tivity (as in Dr Gilly Salmon’s e-Moderating course) and to facilitate online discussions on a chosen topic (say, based on a paper) for two weeks. The team that generates the most interesting and insightful discussion then gets more points added to their individual grades.

This would take care of the need for course participants to “practise collaboration and teamwork” and for the course facilitator to actively facilitate “collaboration, interaction, communication and dialogue that improve learning”. Doing this could be more practical and manageable than having to actively ‘force’ or ‘entice’ course participants to be active in all discussions.

(imported from Blogger.com; see also ‘Industry’ vs. ‘Academia’ I and ‘Industry’ vs. ‘Academia’ III.)

“ASSIGNMENT 2 is going to be a ‘piece of cake’!” i had thought last week, upon finding a high-level pedagogical report submitted in May 2001. However, confusion quickly set in as i tried to re-organise its contents in accordance with Steeples’ Pedagogical Framework.

Now, am i going to write from the perspective of an acad staff (which i am not) or from that of a facilitating ID centre (which i am part of)? Just which parts belong to (1) Philosophy, (2) High Level Pedagogy (HLP), (3) Strategies and (4) Tactics? Some parts, such as Constructivism and Problem-Based Learning, fit into (2) and (3) respectively like a glove. Certain parts seem to belong more to tactics than strategies.

OTHERS, SUCH AS Flexible Learning and “Technology-enabled”, seem to be in one another’s places. From the report, it seemed that “Technology-enabled” was the HLP that prompted the introduction of a Flexible Learning strategy. The directive from the top could have gone something along this line, “Others have started doing this. So, get on the e-learning bandwagon quick, in case we fall behind the pack.”

This is probably why when i first joined the institution two years ago, a frequent refrain of management personnel was, “We’ve forced thousands of students to buy notebook PCs. The value of their purchases is in millions. Now, we have to ensure that the academic staff make good use of technology in their teaching in order to justify these massive expenses.”

Academic staff, in turn, are often unconvinced that using technology would really enhance the quality of their teaching. Even if they are convinced, finding suitable uses of technology is often not easy. But then, i probably shouldn’t be complaining. If things were not so, i could be out of job!

Nevertheless, upon reflection, this top-down approach (instead of a bottoms-up approach) to managing teaching and technology is fairly common among companies and educational institutions. The problems created are similar to one that J. mentioned in an online discussion, “Our director is a firm believer that if you put a course online then why not have 500 students instead of 25 in each class?” Certainly rings a bell when i think of a past experience with an MNC. As B. put it in his reply, “You know it, I know it…why aren’t WE making the decisions?”

Truly interesting what a simple application of Steeples’ pedagogical framework reveals.

(Imported from Blogger.com.)

This is getting clearer and clearer, especially after the video conferencing session that we had with G., S., et al, on one side (in Australia) and with our in-house Instructional Design (ID) program participants on our side (in Singapore) yesterday morning.

THERE WAS a certain unexpressed angst in the air. The Australian team knew that they have put together a great ID program, but somehow participation level in the online program was quite low, especially in the online forum. We the Singaporean team knew that we have made available to our academic staff one of the best programs (if not the best) in Australia and we have tried our best to be good co-facilitators — but the question remained.

Our academic staff participants knew that they wanted to learn. But somehow they couldn’t bring themselves to plough through the excellent papers and then post their insights or comments in the forum. They cannot yet see how the theory or insights gleened from the papers would help them design good online learning courses in practice. And they cannot understand why they were not taught ID in a jiffy.

This evening, after a virtual chat with B. and M., it gets even clearer. It’s a problem of ‘Industry’ vs. ‘Academia’ — ‘practice’ vs. ‘theory’. It’s through no conscious fault of any party. Yes, good ‘practice’ flows from sound ‘theory’. However, like the proverbial East and West, ‘practice’ and ‘theory’ are still having difficulties trying to ‘meet’ — even with much vaunted constructivist approaches.

More about this later. Gotta run for Bible study group now.

(imported from Blogger.com, see also ‘Industry’ vs. ‘Academia’ II)

Each evening, in accordance with the Ignatian spiritual exercise, my spiritual director (SD) would give me four recommended passages to pray over four hours the next day. The thought came on the third day when my SD was listening very attentively to what i was telling him about my prayer experience — the thoughts and feelings that came to mind while meditating or contemplating over the scripture passages. As usual, he has asked a few strategic questions in the beginning and was about to recommend readings for the next day at the end.

SUDDENLY REALISED that in listening non-judgmentally and questioning/recommending strategically, my SD was using constructivist tactics to help me learn experientially from the scripture, my prayers and my past experiences. Only problem is: i had trouble ‘getting into the scene’ through the Ignatian contemplative prayer, where i’m supposed to imagine and feel myself present in the scene described in a scripture passage.

i saw that if i managed to do so, i would be able to learn affectively; then my future actions would proceed naturally from my heart, and not just my head. God knows that though i’m a basically Thinking type person, my feelings can sometimes and quite easily take control over me.

One thought led to another, and got linked to recent insights over these two years — how i’ve conjectured that God has been teaching us mortals through a Problem-Based Learning and Experience-Based Learning approach all our lives. Now, it looks like through divine inspiration, saints like St Ignatius had came up with a constructivist method of helping one another growing spiritually hundreds of years ago. And prayer, as John Craghan put it in his book Psalms for All Seasons, “forces us to interiorize and reflect… allows us to think the thoughts of God, not of humans… [and] acknowledge that things can be otherwise and that we do make a difference.”

It was truly amazing! God the Divine Teacher had been mediating our learning using constructivst methods for eons before academic study uncovered it only a few decades ago!

(imported from Blogger.com)

“1. Prior Commitment.
I have work-related matters and eh, a week-long holiday to attend to. [Then, it was SARS-related quarrantine for almost 2 weeks. Later, a week for spiritual renewal.]

2. A ‘Push’ Factor. I feel a certain revulsion, or to put more mildly, plain inertia. Just one week away from the DF and “My Goodness! How the messages have multipled!” The thought of having to plough through all these messages (now seen as “readings”, as Iris called them during last wed’s virtual chat) is enough to put me off. In other words, the volume and the textual nature of the discussion makes learning rather unattractive.

3. Weak ‘Pull’ Factors (especially ‘emotionally’). Sure, my motivation is high – i take up this course to gain knowledge and to get a qualification. i also think discussion with my tutors and peers is necessary to gain deeper insight. However, if i compare my rate of participation in this learning forum with that in another forum (which is not related to work or study) which i feel emotionally tuned in, reasons (1) and (2) are not enough to stop me from making time to take part in the latter forum. In a way, members of a community need to ‘buy in’ emotionally to the idea of belonging to this community before they will become active and contributing partipants.”

After the post, E. very sensibly pointed out the flipside to relying on emotional commitment as motivation, “…if someone is very emotionally involved in something else that is happening in their life (or, more generally, in the world), it is difficult to stay as focused on one’s work or study. There are some periods in my life when some major concern I have seems to use up all my emotional energy and ‘drains’ me so that I can’t focus as well on other things that are also important. No amount of telling oneself to ‘pull yourself together’ seems to help sometimes.”

i think in a very true sense, this probably sums up another key reason why my usual drive to study flew out of the window these few months. i had been emotionally distracted by a relationship issue, and E. said it all. So, this is how some (or is it many?) of our students feel like! And the heavy textual nature and the required rigor of authoritative references in an academic program like this one doesn’t help.

(imported from Blogger.com)

1. Personal Interest. When i first started on the course in early March, i was highly motivated and raring to go. i’ve paid for the Teaching Online course fees out of my own pocket. Had been teaching a tertiary subject part-time for a year. And due to an on-going project on a knowledge portal for instructional designers, i’ve also been researching on the subject on my own for almost two years.

2. Professional Need. At work, a second run of the School ID program has also started. Will be helping to moderate some of the online discussions. So, skills acquired from the Teaching Online course will come in just handy. i also wanted the qualification: a Masters’ degree in educational technology will help open doors to better job opportunities, i hope.

3. Prior Experience. i was one of the 20-odd staff on a 4-month customized School ID program last year, put together by an Australian u. to help teaching staff handle design, facilitation and evaluation issues of Flexible Learning in our polytechnic. Enjoyed the online discussion with the students and tutors, especially Dr G. So noted with pleasure that he is the key facilitator for the course.

3. Class Dynamics. Initial rounds of self-introductions by course participants on the forum was most promising. There’s Mila from Argentina and Jo C. from Japan — so exceptionally warm and friendly! Ah, there’s Andrew B. from Bangkok and LKM from Hongkong. i would like to meet them when i get there in a few weeks’ time. Then, there’s David S. from Jerusalem who travels to Prague thrice a year. How exciting! And many many others from all over the world — Australia, Canada, USA, Saudi Arabia, Spain, UK, Netherlands…. so mind-boggling — such an international group of students with such impressive experiences and credentials!

Thirteen weeks into the program, almost all the above factors still apply. Another plus was the responsiveness of tutors like G. and B. Got a week’s extension for Assignment 1 and then a two-week extension for Assignment 2 quite readily. Now, this IS Flexible Learning.

So, how did i let myself be side-tracked?

(imported from Blogger.com)

In a twist of fate, yours truly (normally highly motivated and studious) is now behaving like a proverbial unmotivated lazy student in our institution.

First, went on a long-awaited six-day holiday (this is for family bonding) in Hongkong and Bangkok in mid March. Came back in the midst of a Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) scare. Was confined to work at 56kbps at home (and up to 10 hours per month) instead of 100Mbps at office (unlimited!) for six days in Week 4 (bcos i just returned from a SARS-inffected country) and Week 5 (bcos a student was down with SARS).

LOST SOME momentum there, but managed to squeeze out Assignment 1 with a one-week extension after the official deadline. Then, went on a long-overdue four-day retreat (this is for spiritual renewal) at the local Ignatian centre in Week 12. Felt wonderful upon my return, but for a week or two was most reluctant to get into study mode.

Quite an experience! i’m beginning to understand how an unmotivated lazy student might feel as untouched learning material accumulates with the rapid passage of time while other activities beckon so enticingly. Almost wanted to give up! :-p

And quite an irony! Just a few months ago, i had put the finishing touches to a Blackboard course entitled Top e-Learners’ Study Strategies — specifically designed for students in our polytechnic. Got great reviews from boss, colleagues and varsity tutors earlier. Now, i can’t even apply them myself — these strategies have become Strategies That Don’t Work.

But wait! i chose to take this course, i wanted to learn to set effective online teaching strategies and tactics, and this skill is useful in my work. So, okay, grit my teeth and hang on!

And inspired by blogs shared by an online classmate Adam L. and ex-classmate A.O., i hereby start mine….

(imported from Blogger.com)